<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
I have many things to say about your arguments, but </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">about t</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">hat perhaps we can go on
endlessly. But let me be pragmatic and precise.<br>
<br>
Do you agree that <br>
<br>
(1) there are many pressing global public policy issues, the kind of
which OECD and CoE is so actively dealing with at present<br>
<br>
(2) it is not globally democratic that OECD and CoE as clubs of a few
rich countries do all this (default) global policy making.<br>
<br>
If you do not agree to the above, lets just first discuss this. If you
do, lets move to the next step<br>
<br>
Vide (2) above, developing countries, their governments as well as
people, are obviously not happy with the situation. The May 18th
meeting is about </font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">this
</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">specific problem. And
you will also recognise the dangerous directions that our joint
statement argues the Internet may be moving towards, and the need to
address this problem. <br>
<br>
Since you seem to have some model in mind, inspired by WGIG or
whatever, why dont you present a clear proposal of what global
institutional mechanism should address the global public policy issues
that are today addressed by OECD/CoE. Please tell us clearly what
would be the structure of this new mechanism, what functions will it
perform, and how, what would be its outcomes and how will they be
implemented. How would it address the public policy imperatives in all
IG areas that need global attention.... What would be its relationship
with the current technical/ CIR governance system. People are looking
for real solutions to real issues, and the May18 meeting is about that.
I would request you to be as clear and precise about your model as
possible...<br>
<br>
Otherwise, just criticising every model for change that is proposed is
simply voting for the status quo.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
On Sunday 13 May 2012 02:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder:
WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no independent standing or decision making capacity.
Wolfgang:
Formally you are right. But de facto, WGIG "decided" to define IG, to create the IGF and - as a result of a lack of consensus within WGIG - to launch a process for further discussion on oversight (which ended in EC). A new WGIG would not just repeat what the old was. It has to take the next formal step: From an body which prepares decision to a body which is able to produce rough consensus. The innovation with WGIG was that all stakeholders participated equally in the discussion and drafting of the report. Membership was not "layered". What you propose is a "layered" system. This is the hierarchical thinking of the 20th century. What we need is a network thinking for the 21st century.
Parminder:
CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like WGIG report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted to to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with CIRP/ GA.
Wolfgang:
That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model" it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS & PS bureaus) on a lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer", the intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the advise from the CS bureau was sidelined. We made 86 recommendations during PrepCom3 (September 2003) and when we analyzed the draft produced by the intergovernmental bureau after they got our recommendations we discovered, that 82 recommendations were totally ignored and that 4 recommendations went into very vague paragraphs of the intergovernmental document. We called this "ignorance" and "arrogance" and this produced a deep crisis for the whole summit with the option of a walkout of Civil Society. It needed a lot of diplomatic efforts of the Swiss president Pierre Couchepin to keep the CS inside the WSIS process (a lot of CS wanted to got to P
lan B and to protest and march through the streets of Geneva). I remember two night sessions in the Swiss embassy in Geneva, a special invitation by the Lord Mayor of the City of Geneva and a press conference with Minister Marc Furrer, Pierre Couchepin, Utsumi, Karen Banks and me in the conference center. They argued that they can not include CS proposals directly into their documents which are negotiated among governments. We argued we can not give (the wanted) legitimicy to a declaration which is negotiated only by governments. CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to participate in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table in exchange for being silent if it comes to decision making is no option. The compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A governmental declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in the light of the experiences of the last ten years - th
e civil society WSIS declaration. (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf">http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf</a>).
The Geneva compromise was good for the moment. But it was a bad experience. It was 2003. At this time the multistakeholder model was still a baby. It grew with WGIG. Now it is a child. Not yet an adult. And you want to repeat this experience now in 2012? Look forward, not backwards and be more innovative. There is no need to continue with the mistakes of the past.
BTW, you always critisize OECD. Did you notice the problems CISAC has? The step forward is that it can make its voice heard. But there is long way to participate in decision making. CISAC is on the road, but still in the rain. The OECD model - and CIRP is obviously partly inspired by it - is good for an existing organisation, but not for a new one. If the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (or the ITU) establishes advisory bodies for non-govenrmental stakeholders, including civil society, this would be an interesting proposal to enhance the mechanisms of yesterday. But if you want to create something new, you have to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
Wolfgang
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>