<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 30 May 2012 03:42 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FC5F28B.6080505@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi All<br>
<br>
As discussed recently with Anriette in Geneva, ITfC welcomes a serious
engagement with the enhanced cooperation (EC) issue at the IGF. </font></blockquote>
<br>
SInce the fervour for an IGF based discussion on enhanced cooperation
(EC) seems to have formed with some suddenness, and some have even
expressed surprise as to why was EC never discussed at the IGF, a
little of recent history may be useful to recollect. <br>
<br>
Even at the Nairobi IGF, Marilia's and my organisation had a workshop
on '<span class="cf_text"><a
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=182">Global
Internet related public policies – Is there an Institutional Gap?</a></span>
' which for the organisers was rather directly an EC workshop without
the name, is it not?<br>
<br>
Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly
blocked any reference to EC in MAG discussion, and ITfC proposal for a
workshop on EC for the 2008 IGF was formally turned down, and we had to
rope in the Brazilian government to support our proposal whereby
finally EC became a part of the CIR main session discussion....<br>
<br>
While I am at it, I do find it rather interesting to hear rather strong
and concerted suggestions that the IGF should have working groups
(WGs), and even issue recommendations, on EC. We are just a few months
away from the time when the CSTD WG on IGF improvements folded up. At
the CSTD WG, some of us forcefully advocated for the IGF to form WGs
and to come up with recommendations (these demands were also part of
India's IGF reform proposal), but found little support, and lot of
passive resistance, including among those who now seem to want such
WGs/ recs for EC. Maybe an explanation by the concerned can be helpful
:) .... parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FC5F28B.6080505@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Since a
new workshop proposal may be difficult to push in at this stage, one
day pre-IGF event should be the best way to do it. I dont think it
would work to do a joint thing with GigaNet because </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">GigaNet has an intense,
pre-determined program of a rather different nature than the kind of
practical and political discussion we are looking to engage in vis a
vis EC. However, there are important overlapping actors with interest
in both, which problem I am not sure how to deal with. But I think a
meeting on EC should be a separate one day thing for it to be effective
at all. <br>
<br>
Also, if we are indeed to avoid the typical 'exegesis of TA' (Avri) or
go beyond discussing the 'Tao of EC' (Bill) we will need to start
sorting out and perhaps agree on categories of discussion, at least to
the extent possible. This also mean that we should be open to first
discuss this issue thoroughly on the IGC list, trying to get our basic
categories right, but also to build relatively clear set of alternative
positions and institutional models. Such preparation alone will give
meat and meaning to a discussion at the IGF. <br>
<br>
I think there are two key sides of the EC issue - (1) on tech gov side,
the current unilateral oversight of CIRs is the main issue, and some
concerns about capture of tech standards bodies an additional issue (2)
on the side of social, eco, cultural policies pertaining to the
Internet, with global significance, the kind of work OECD's Committee
on ICCP does is the main focus, along with other instances of uni- and
pluri-lateralism, and also increasing dominance of private
regulation....<br>
<br>
If anyone want to suggest some other schema, sure, it is most welcome.
But we must first develop a basic level of agreement on categories and
key issue areas for discussion before we try to seek substantive
convergences on the way forward, solutions, appropriate institutional
models etc.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
On Tuesday 29 May 2012 10:20 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FC4FE4A.6040000@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all.. also responding to Avri's prodding of the MAG...
I think reopening workshop proposals will be contested, but it is not
impossible.
If the IGC wants to re-jig its proposal that is also good. I would not
let go of talking about IGF improvements however.. it is important.
Particularly how we deal with outcomes/messages etc.
We can also propose that EC be addressed in the CIR and Taking Stock
main sessions by making sure there is mention of it in the next version
of the programme paper.
Discussion at regional IGFs will also be very valuable, and can feed
into Baku, directly or indirectly.
But a longer-term strategy would be, in my view, to do the pre-event,
have some focus during the IGF, hopefully strengthened by the pre-event,
and then make sure we use the open consultation next Feb to get a main
session on this topic at the Indonesia IGF.
Personally I really think it is time to introduce new main session
themes.. and this is one that will not go away.
Hopefully by next year we will also be able to focus on specific issues
(and not a Tao of EC, quoting Bill) as mentioned by several people on
the list and look at concrete options for resolving some of these issues
such as those proposed by Parminder and responded to by Milton earlier
today.
As far as an open forum is concerned.. I doubt that the MAG will be open
to changing this format. As Bill pointed out, open forums are for
institutions, or events, to share what they do. It was created precisely
because some institutions used workshops to share information about
(promote) their activities.
Lee.. one more thought on and event the day after.. APC has tried on
several occasions to have project meetings on the day after the event as
we usually bring people to the IGF with funding for a specific project.
It has not worked well for us.. we are so tired by then that we are
pretty useless at having serious discussion.
A pre-event will clash with Giganet and the ministerial, and ISOC. I am
hoping we can find a way of collaborating with Giganet as we did last
year. We are talking with ISOC to see how they feel about this.
As for governments.. ministers do not travel without the people that
brief them. If we can get some of those for even 50% of the duration of
our pre-event it will be valuable. And, if the event is planned
well-enough we might even get additional government people that were not
planning to go to the IGF at all.
Anriette
On 29/05/2012 18:28, Lee W McKnight wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks Anriette,
I thought folks were saying that the pre-event Ministerial precluded governments from participating in an advance EC event.
My hunch is still a 'coalition of the willing and able' - whether willing because they wish for progress on EC, or fear it - would adjust plans and stick around for the CS-led after-event discussion. Including - some - government reps. Who tend to have more flexibility and ease in adjusting travel arrangements than broke CS types. But, if the same objective can be served within an Open Session of IGF, as Izumi suggests, that might be even better.
And as noted, it was just my 2 cents, if not feasible or useful, or if advance event works...never mind.
Lee
________________________________________
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:40 AM
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation
Dear Lee
The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government
participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly
developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with
the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants.
We had very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened
last year in Nairobi.
But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a good idea.. to
focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Problem is
also cost though.. and as there are already several other events the day
before, it is more likely people are planning to be there already.
Anriette
On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If I may make a suggestion:
Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest.
That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups.
We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen.
Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.)
The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable.
And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation.
I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse.
Lee
PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this.
________________________________________
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] on behalf of Roland Perry [<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</a>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation
In message <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1@acm.org"><463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1@acm.org></a>, at 07:40:58
on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><avri@acm.org></a> writes
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial
had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand
in the way of anything.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from
attending should be taken into consideration.
It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same
process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that
Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to
arrange an event to clash with it.
--
Roland Perry
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""> </pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>