<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Marilia<div><br></div><div>You packed a lot of things into message…<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Nov 1, 2011, at 12:28 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi Bill,<div><br></div><div>It is getting late here, so I will take only 2 of your points and come back on the others later.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:22 AM, William Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite">If an EC mechanism is created, I would never want it to disregard IGF's inputs, would you?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div>BILL: I would not want an intergovernmental EC mechanism to be created, therefore I would not want the IGF restructured for the purpose of providing inputs into it. But IGF discussions have already influenced other sphere, e.g. the OECD's decision to allow TC and CS participation, some of ICANN's internal reforms, etc.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>MARILIA: The discussion about improvements with respect to outcomes is based on the feeling shared by many actors that the rich discussions that take place in the IGF have not been captured in a way that: a) can serve as input in global policy making; b) can be communicated to other bodies; c) can create a track of IGF discussions, so we can see improvements from year to year. One proposal advanced by many of us in CS is that more concrete outcomes should capture convergences and divergent policy options, as explained in detail before. This improvement would be made after years of discussion and after many people in IGF have made claims for more concrete outcomes. It would not be made with the purpose to provide inputs into an non-existant EC mechanism.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm with you until the last sentence. We just view enhanced cooperation differently and probably there's no way to bridge that divide. For you I guess it means a UN intergovernmental body with comprehensive authority to make global public policies on whatever issues governments want to target and to oversee and give binding directions to the nongovernmental bodies governing in CIR. For me that model is undesirable on the merits, unworkable in practice, and has zero chance of being a consensus position in the international community. And the fact that people with the motivation can read a mandate for that into the purposely ambiguous language agreed at the 12th hour of the Tunis prepcom to avoid a summit disaster is not so compelling. One can also read into those words a mandate for precisely the kinds of enhancements to cooperation that have been stimulated by the WSIS process in multiple policy spaces. So there's no point in going through yet another textual exegesis of the TA provisions, which we've done on this list multiple times over the years. If anything, we'd need instead to have the sort of discussion that's been asked for previously, e.g. on what specific problems would such an organization be a solution to, how would it work, what would be the costs and benefits, etc. </div><div><br></div><div>But the immediate point I made was about how this agenda affects the prospects for getting consensus on the sort of IGF improvements CS has advocated. Years of discussion make it clear that as long as they believe the end game for some countries is a UN intergovernmental body with broad powers, the TC, business, and many governments (and not just in the industrialized world) simply will not agree to changes that they fear would make the IGF focused on the intergovernmental negotiation of recs. You've responded by insisting that the two matters are separate, but they don't appear to believe that, and the Indian government making a direct linkage doesn't help your argument. So again, I'd urge you to take this up with them in the WGIGF and beyond, I'm not their spokesperson. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="im"><div><br></div></div>BILL: I have been for a more outcome oriented IGF since before there was an IGF. But if there is an intergovernmental EC mechanism soaking up all the attention of governments and generating an untold number of irresolvable conflicts, I agree with Milton that IGF could end up marginalized. Many G77 governments have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't particularly care about having a space to talk to stakeholders and engage in collective learning. What they want is what's been proposed, an UNCTAD of the Internet that nominally can facilitate treaty negotiations and GA resolutions. The model here would not look like OECD deliberations. It'd be more like the CSTD. </div>
</div></blockquote><div> </div><div>MARILIA: Well, then you agree that more concrete outcomes are the way to go, you just don't think it is strategically interesting to move on that direction. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I don't think it is possible, which is a different thing. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>So, if got your point, if there is no EC, </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>no intergovernmental uber-body...</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>outcomes would be good. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Working groups that could potentially develop consensus views for consideration in main sessions and by governance decision making bodies would be good. Plenary negotiations of recommendations with governments in a dominant position would not be.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>But if EC comes into existence, then outcomes from IGF would become a bad thing? I dont understand why.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Because I think EC as you understand it would be a bad thing, and anyway would probably diminish the IGF rather than strengthen it.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>In addition, if the IGF continues for more 5 years without providing more concrete outcomes, do you really think that it will remain relevant? </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don't think the criteria for relevance is whether it negotiates formal inputs into an intergovernmental process. As the continually strong attendance suggests, the IGF plays other roles that are valued by a lot of people, even if some governments can't be bothered to participate.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>That people and organizations who are asking for concrete outcomes will continue attending happily? </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If by concrete outcomes you mean formal inputs into an intergovernmental process, it's not entirely clear who all these proponents are, how much they actually participate now, and whether they would participate in the future. If instead concrete outcomes can mean the sort of thing I've suggested, then I suppose some people would continue to come despite any frustration that it's not happening, and maybe some would choose not to. Either way, IGFs would still probably attract crowds.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>That governments will still be there (including western governments?) </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'd guess that the ones that are there now would probably still be there and the ones that aren't there now probably would still not be there.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Countries who have funding maybe will send one or two low level officials. But most likely countries will resort to their established regional platforms. We are currently discussing the meeting in UK. That may become more frequent. And without a stronger IGF, that sends messaged, there is little that can be done to prevent that trend, or to call attention to more legitimately debated policy options. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Governments have always met in non-universal settings and will continue to do so irrespective of what happens to the IGF. <div><br></div><div>Anyway, it's not obvious going around like this will yield consensus. My position remains that if we could take intergovernmental control off the table, it might be easier to persuade all the actors that don't want it that a stronger IGF not only need not threatening but might even be useful. Your position is they should change their positions and agree with you. So go ahead and persuade them of that if you can. But please don't convey that there's consensus support in CS for the Indian proposal, as there obviously isn't.</div><div><br></div><div>Best of luck,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></div></body></html>