<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Parminder<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On May 11, 2011, at 3:46 PM, parminder wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"><br>
A<font color="#000000">s Jeremy explains we refer to the eG8
meeting, which is supposed to be a consultative forum for
inputting into the formal G 8 meeting. And for me, IGF is nothing
if not a policy participation / consultation forum for global
Internet related policies. How do you see IGF, if not that?</font><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Again, from what I'd read the idea was for these corporate folks to generate some output recommendations that would be taken into the intergovernmental process, and my point was simply that while the open participatory model of IGF is the right one, it's not currently set up to be able to work out recs that would have any standing with anyone. For folks who think IGF ought to have that capacity, holding up the current somewhat enfeebled structure as a model to emulate seems an odd choice.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<blockquote cite="mid:34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."? If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles. </pre></blockquote>
<font color="#000000">Since I am one of those whose digestive juices
are going to be ill served by any such suggestion, can you please
explain how ICANN can be a model for the kind of Internet policy
issues that are on the agenda of eG8. ICANN's model seems to me
made only for dealing with somewhat narrow technical issues, or
thereabout. And it hardly does very well - democratic
participation wise, even in dealing with those issues. Since you
clearly suggest that ICANN model could likely be suggested in the
present case, I am very interesting to know how would this model
work for the kind of issues that eG8 is proposing to look into.
For this purpose pl see the quotes below from eG8 fact sheet, also
enclosed.<br></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>We can agree to disagree on whether what ICANN does is just narrow and technical. My point is simply that there are institutional structures that allows CS inputs to be brought into the decision making process on nominally/formally equal terms...formally being a big caveat, since of course CS has the least power and outcomes usually are driven more by the competition between different industry factions (which is pervasive in ICANN…I'm always amazed to read characterizations of business as being a singular block with a singular perspective…these folks are at each others' throats half the time). On the other hand, one could also point to a number of cases were CS/noncommercial ideas drove agendas and led to outcomes that wouldn't have happened in their absence. CS in ICANN and IGF is actually a rather interesting comparison...</div><div><br></div><div>Bottom line, institutional rules and decision making procedures matter, and IGF presently lacks the machinery that would allow for working out "institution"-wide recs in which CS inputs have to be taken on board and at least responded to when making decisions. We can't even get agreement for mechanisms at a sub-instituiton level, like working groups that can make recs. So while the peer-level participation half is great, the lack of mechanisms for working out outcomes based on due process doesn't seem like a good answer.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>On May 11, 2011, at 4:00 PM, parminder wrote:</div><div><br></div><div>[two messages 14 min apart with the same subject line…you have a lot of bandwidth for this...glad I read both…]</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"><br>On Wednesday 11 May 2011 02:09 PM, William Drake wrote:<blockquote cite="mid:A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch" type="cite"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; "><br></div></span></span></div><br><div><div>On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span"><br></font>The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I don't see that there is an inconsistency here.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68 summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. And the news reportage on this one <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may">http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may</a> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t<b>o generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,</b></div></blockquote><br>All these recs of the side events are made without formal negotiating processes, isnt it.... In fact these are good examples to show how deliberative processes can arrive at recs, wthout formal negotiations. (In fact, you say, you wrote the recs on global digital divide, that hardly looks like a negotiation process).</div></blockquote><div><br></div>You must be joking. There was a TF with reps from like 34 companies plus speaking observers including ten international organizations, foreign policy think tanks, university programs and foundations. Many different preferences on some points and the process of negotiating to consensus required months of meetings. I just wrote it up, sneaked in some additional bits, and sold it back to them.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"> In fact it is unfortunate how those opposed to strengthening the policy role of the IGF have linked IGF recs necessarily to UN style formal negotiations. Since there cannot be such negotiations at the IGF, there cant be recs by the IGF - their simple but deliberately fallacious logic. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes there are a lot of actors who anticipate, based on WSIS and the wider history of global governance, that reconciling highly diverse views and preferences would require formal negotiations. Aside from hoping that working groups could do things in a more rational and effective way, or proposing loose sense of the room messages, what have we offered them in the way of other models to work with? How might one architect a collaborative process that sidestepped the kinds of dynamics they fear? I don't think we (IGC, CS) have really contributed much out of the box thinking on this that would provide much basis for concerned parties to unclench, and meanwhile whenever governments speak to the matter they throw it back into the intergovernmental negotiation frame, not so helpful. So we end up with polarization and immobility. It's reminiscent of the situation circa 1994 with the definition of IG, it took orthogonal third way thinking from CS to uncork the thing. We haven't done the same on "outcomes."<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"><blockquote cite="mid:A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch" type="cite"><div><b><br></b></div><div>Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.</div></blockquote><br>We think there will be, and we are afraid of that and are opposing their non-inclusive nature. As is suggested from your earlier examples of the Okinawa summit, these recs are likely to have a powerful influence on what gets decided and announced by the G 8 meeting, which is likely to have a powerfu linflcuence on the future of global IG. I am not clear why does this not bother you. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>You'd be a lot clearer if you eschewed misreading things into what I say. I didn't say it doesn't bother me, it does. All I said was holding up IGF's dysfunctional non-decision making model as a solution to the need for multistakeholder decision making seemed odd.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"><br><blockquote cite="mid:A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch" type="cite"><div> And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?</div></blockquote><br>We see IGF as a public participation/ consultation model for Internet policy making, and thus we think that its model should be used for all forums that are supposed to input public opinion (or that of all stakeholders) into formal policy making processes. <br></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Can't you separate the issues of participation rights and decision making procedures? IGF's great for the former, has bupkis for the latter.</div><div><br></div><div>We're actually more or less on the same page, even if you refuse to accept it…I just think we need to have serious discussions about alternative decision making/consensus building modalities. That's part of why I'm doing workshops on institutional design and choice. </div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><br></body></html>