<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 03 February 2013 01:31 PM,
Adam Peake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:p06240800cd33c98bc62f@%5B192.168.1.125%5D"
type="cite">Parminder, could you send a link to IGF Improvements
working group's report(s).
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<cite>unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf </cite><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:p06240800cd33c98bc62f@%5B192.168.1.125%5D"
type="cite">
<br>
Has there been a discussion on the list about the WG's
recommendations?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is an interesting question. The developments at the meeting were
presented to the IGC throughout, as well as the final outcomes...
However, I did not find much discussion on them, which surprised me
since IGC claims principally to be IGF oriented.<br>
<br>
What surprised me even further was that some of the key areas
proposed for IGF improvements - like providing relatively clear
recommendations, forming of issues based working groups by and in
the MAG, etc, generally to extend MAG beyond being a mere program
committee and IGF merely a open platform for discussions - have
subsequently been strongly taken up by the very actors that opposed
these 'improvements' within the WG . In this regard, the 'looking
forward' session on the last day of Baku IGF, and the
'controversial' MAG meeting on the same day, were key events. But a
strong inkling of what was coming was available in the the BAku
pre-event on enhanced cooperation, and also some posting by some IGC
members in the run up to the Baku IGF. <br>
<br>
I am cut-pasting below excerpts from the <a
href="http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/AnnualReport2011-12/Annualreport_full_2011-2012.pdf">2012
annual report of IT for Change</a> containing a very brief report
on the WG on IGF improvement, which is of course written for a more
general audience. <br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
Excerpts from the ITfC annual report on WG on IGF improvements.<br>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"><font size="4"><b>Improving
the
UN Internet Governance Forum</b></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">IT for Change has
been one of the five civil society members of the CSTD Working
Group
on Improvements to the IGF. Over 2010-2011, we presented our own
extensive proposals for IGF improvements
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://itforchange.net/UNCSTD_WGIIGF_input_papers">http://itforchange.net/UNCSTD_WGIIGF_input_papers</a>) and also
worked
closely with the Indian government to develop what came to be
called
as the 'India proposal'
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://itforchange.net/india_report_wgiigf">http://itforchange.net/india_report_wgiigf</a>).
This was a very elaborate proposal for improving the IGF to become
a
path-breaking global institution of deliberative democracy,
ensuring
very broad public participation in global Internet policy making.
Much of the discussions of the Working Group revolved around the
'India proposal'. In May 2011, the CSTD extended the life of the
Working Group. During 2011-2012, the group met thrice and in all
the
meetings IT for Change was very active. Unfortunately, while
developing countries had strongly pushed for strengthening the IGF
in
the first round of meetings of the Working Group, an effort
resisted
by developed countries and the business community, in the second
round, developing countries became rather restrained.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">They had serious
misgivings about the role of the IGF in supplanting rather than
supporting democratic global governance systems. This rather
justified feeling unfortunately added to the already strong fear
among the more authoritatively inclined countries that the IGF
will
mostly be used to fan human rights issues.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">The second round of
meetings of the Working Group saw a surprising amount of consensus
among government representatives from across North and South, and
also business members, for not rocking the status quo with regard
to
the IGF. Most developing countries had strongly resisted the
primacy
of a capacity building role for the IGF at the debates before the
Tunis Summit, most graphically described in the words of a
developing
country diplomat, "We don't want developed countries to set up a
school for developing countries". Very interestingly, the same
countries were now found to insist on a primary capacity-building
role for the IGF at the Working Group meetings. They also now
joined
the developed countries to speak against public funding of the
IGF,
and against having its outcomes formally communicated to bodies
dealing with Internet governance. No one seemed interested in
strengthening the IGF; on one side they did not want to lose their
hegemonic positions, and on the other, they were not sure of the
new
role of non-state actors in global governance. This shows how much
developing countries have lost confidence and trust in the IGF
over
the years. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">This left the few
civil society members of the group in a rather difficult position
to
try and salvage at least some possibilities of improvements to the
IGF. The Working Group meetings become a rather lack-lustre affair
with little desire for real change among the overwhelming majority
in
the room. If the final report still has some useful
recommendations,
it largely goes back to the first round of meetings of the Working
Group, which contributed the basic structure of the final report
and
gave some meaty language to the draft (The 'India proposal' by far
made the largest contribution in this regard). Though most of it
got
whittled-down,what survived constitutes the most important part of
the final report of the Working Group.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">The final report
focuses on 'outcomes' from the IGF, a term that had become
contested
in the post Summit years. This recommendation, if sincerely
followed,
should provide avenues of some improvements in the IGF. The report
also asks for focus on clear policy questions, with the results of
the discussions on these questions required to be reflected in the
'outcome' documents. In fact, one of the most important
contributions
of the report is its re-affirmation of the primacy of the policy
dialogue role of the IGF over its capacity building role. While
the
mandate from the Tunis Summit is clear in this regard, in the
subsequent years, very strong, and somewhat successful, efforts
have
been made to undermine the primacy of the policy dialogue role.
The
report also makes some useful contribution on how the
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF should be constituted,
especially with regard to making sure that (1) it is not captured
by
a few powerful stakeholders, and (2) there is an improvement in
the
representation of the hitherto under-represented groups. The
report
also stresses the need for complete transparency vis-à-vis the
income and expenditure of the IGF. IT for Change will try to
monitor
closely how the recommendations of the Working Group are carried
out.</p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:p06240800cd33c98bc62f@%5B192.168.1.125%5D"
type="cite">
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
<br>
Adam
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Apologies for being late into this
important discussion.
<br>
<br>
I will comment separately on the discussions that have taken
place upto now and the evolving text. However, I think we should
first of all seek that MAG implements the recommendations of the
WG on IGF Improvements, especially on the following counts
<br>
(below are all quotes from the WG's report)
<br>
<br>
"To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF
should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at
the IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the
debates of these questions, with special focus on public policy
perspectives and aimed at capacity building, should be stated in
the outcome documentation."
<br>
<br>
"The outcome documentation should include messages that map out
converging and diverging opinions on given questions."
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Š...identifying pertinent key policy questions around which
main sessions for the IGF will be structured. In order to
enhance the bottom-up process and to facilitate the
identification of key policy questions, the Secretariat could
also issue the call for workshop proposals before the first Open
Consultation."
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(quotes end)
<br>
<br>
There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis a
vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
policy questions that it was created to contribute towards
resolution of. For tooo long it has remained caught in matters
of process and form. It is time to do what it really needed to
do.
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Louis Pouzin
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pouzin@well.com"><mailto:pouzin@well.com></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pouzin@well.com"><pouzin@well.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM,
Norbert Bollow
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><mailto:nb@bollow.ch></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><nb@bollow.ch></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Louis Pouzin
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pouzin@well.com"><mailto:pouzin@well.com></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pouzin@well.com"><pouzin@well.com></a>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">re Main sessions.
<br>
*Only two *90min main sessions.
<br>
One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
<br>
Interpretation only in english.
<br>
Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main
sessions
<br>
like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in
main
<br>
session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79"><http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79">http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79</a><br>
<br>
If so, why?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes Norbert.
<br>
<br>
Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for
local
<br>
celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious
hackneyed
<br>
truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of
attendees come
<br>
because there is interpretation in several languages. Two
sessions of
<br>
that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
<br>
<br>
One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever
that
<br>
means. Result will tell.
<br>
<br>
Workshops are more effective because:
<br>
- there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to
a good
<br>
one,
<br>
- speakers use spontaneous language,
<br>
- there are more interactions with the attendees,
<br>
- specific topics fit better with a small room,
<br>
- it's easier to identify who is there.
<br>
<br>
On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely.
Speakers'
<br>
english is more or less understandable, depending on the
room. This
<br>
could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to
decode
<br>
various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken
american
<br>
(Chicagoan).
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are
definitely
<br>
making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we
should
<br>
give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves
into
<br>
just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the
beginning
<br>
and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into
something
<br>
that is truly taken seriously.
<br>
<br>
So far it seems to me that significantly more of the
contributors to
<br>
the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the
need
<br>
for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid
of most
<br>
of them.
<br>
<br>
So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this
change
<br>
request.
<br>
<br>
What do the others think?
<br>
<br>
Greetings,
<br>
Norbert
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>