<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 29/09/2011, at 11:36 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>We are contacted by the delegation of the US government if we can<br>have some small and informal meeting here today during lunch,<br>just 1 hour, late yesterday.<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>I blogged about the outcome here:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/secret-civil-society-business">http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/secret-civil-society-business</a></div><div><br></div><div>A few paragraphs excerpted from that post:</div><div><br></div><div>"We were all agreed on the success of the IGF as a discussion forum, but
the civil society representatives contended that improvements to improve
the forum's output orientation were needed. The <a href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/the-indian-proposal-for-improvements-to-igf-outcomes">Indian proposal</a>
provided one possible template for doing this, generating a range of
specific policy options that could be presented to policy makers, as
WGIG developed policy options for presentation to the second phase of
WSIS. </div>
<br>The US delegates, however, feared that such improvements would
result in turning the forum into an intergovernmental-style negotiation.
Whilst, by definition, governments have no problem with
intergovernmental-style negotiation, they contend that this would
destroy the IGF as we know it. ...<br>
<br>As I pointed out at the
meeting, we could easily try it as an experiment for one year, and then
abandon it if it didn't work. ... My colleagues spoke to similar effect, reminding us that
multi-stakeholderism, and the IGF as a body based on this principle, are
still young and that we should not be afraid to take measured risks and
experiment until we find the ideal formula - one with a little more
output orientation, but stopping short of intergovernmental-style
negotiation.
<br>
<br>... More frankly,
the biggest fear that underlies the objection to negotiations is not
that it will damage the IGF, but (and this is an exact quote) that
"governments can only cede negotiating authority up to a certain point."
In fact for both governments and the private sector, the question is
the same... how much of their power are they really willing to share?
<br>
<br>Another topic of discussion was this year's "principle tsunami" (to
borrow Wolfgang's phrase, and with apologies to Izumi), with
governmental frameworks of principles on Internet governance having been
put forward by the G8, OECD, EU, US, Brazil, Council of Europe and
more. Wolfgang's vision is that civil society should develop its own
similar statement of principles, and that we should then discuss it and
the other statements within the IGF, working towards developing them
into a common framework of commitments that can be agreed by all
stakeholders, before the conclusion of the IGF's next mandate term.
<br>
<br>As far as the US delegates would move during our discussion was to
consider that perhaps the IGF meetings should have a particular theme
around which its discussions could be focussed each year, and that main
sessions and workshops could somehow develop and map policy options with
respect to that theme. But they did also undertake to take all our
comments on board."<br><br><div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>-- <br><p style="margin-bottom: 12pt; "><b><span style="color: black; ">Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>Project Coordinator</span></b><br><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; ">Consumers International</span><br><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: gray; ">Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<br>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: navy; "><br><u><a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">www.consumersinternational.org</a></u><br><u><a href="http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int">Twitter @ConsumersInt</a></u><br></span><br><span style="font-size: 8pt; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); ">Read our <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print this email unless necessary.</span></p></div></div>
</div>
<br></body></html>