<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Jeremy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Thanks for your role in attempting to get some constructive activity going. I like your idea regarding IGF, more on that later.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">I have read the Brazilian resolution at the link you provided (was not allowed to enter the WTPF meetings). While I recognize that it is a well-intentioned attempt to
bridge some of the divides, I cannot support it. In fact, I can only view it as a step backwards because of its reversion to the language that makes representatives of national governments preeminent policy makers and the rest of us nothing more than consultants
to them at their pleasure. I am referring, of course, to the language about “each in their respective roles and responsibilities.” Until national government representatives accept shared responsibility for policy making in the IG context, we do not have MS,
we do not have anything new. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Emerging from WTPF, there seems to have been a systematic effort to redefine “multistakeholderism” in conservative, state-centric terms. Moreover, ITU succeeded in co-opting
IGF, by successfully developing these draft opinions. That is why I am interested in Jeremy’s effort to push the IGF more toward a defined output. I will read his proposal more carefully however, before commenting further. At this stage I just want to warn
anyone who might have a knee-jerk reaction against such an experiment in IGF to keep an open mind, because the competition from the ITU in this regard make may rigid opposition to this option self-defeating.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeremy Malcolm<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; irp<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello all,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is to an extend an invitation to participants from the IGC and IRP to join Best Bits participants in working on a draft proposal that we intend to put to next week's IGF open consultation meeting. The initiative for this proposal
comes out of what happened at the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) this week, when Brazil's proposal for a seventh opinion of the meeting, titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance",
failed mainly due to lack of time. I won't say anything more about its substantive content here (though that is a worthy subject for a separate thread), but you can download the draft opinion at <a href="http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en">http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en</a> or
read it online at <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Almost all stakeholders at WTPF agreed that the opinion should be considered further, but there is a question as to where this should happen. Two options are that the opinion would be finalised by the ITU's Council Working Group on Internet
policy (CWG-Internet), which is government-only and meets behind closed doors, or that it would go to the IGF. In terms of our ability to have input into the text of the opinion, the latter is obviously the better option. But various developing countries
objected to this, correctly, on the basis that the IGF does not have the ability to conclude formal outputs.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The draft proposal addresses this tension, by proposing a new output-oriented main session that would enable the IGF to facilitate the finalisation of the draft opinion, but without requiring changes to the IGF that would enable it to negotiate
formal recommendations. I won't repeat everything in the proposal, but in short, the main session would aim to produce a "multistakeholder opinion" that would be non-binding, would be an output
<i>at</i> the IGF rather than <i>of</i> the IGF, and would be endorsed individually rather than being attributed to the IGF as a whole.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If (after reading it!) you would like to discuss the ideas in the proposal in general, you can do so on this list and/or on the Best Bits list, but if you would like to suggest concrete textual changes to the proposal, you can do so on
this pad, which currently contains a first draft:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The deadline for finalising the proposal is short because the IGF open consultation commences on Tuesday. Therefore we are accepting input on the text of the proposal only until 9am Monday, and shortly thereafter it will be opened for
endorsements via the Best Bits website. The proposal will be presented at the open consultation meeting on behalf of however many organisations or individuals have endorsed it at that time.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note that this proposal is intended to be a fairly modest yet important step forward towards tangible outputs, but the "multistakeholder opinion" process isn't in itself put forward as the fulfilment of the enhanced cooperation mandate.
Rather, it is a step along that path, acknowledging that, for now, the IGF and enhanced cooperation processes remain on a dual track (the Tunis Agenda suggests this anyway, but it was formalised as a condition of the IGF's renewal to satisfy developing country
concerns that the IGF had not adequately addressed their concerns).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">-- </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: <a href="https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main">https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main</a> | #wcrd2013<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">@Consumers_Int | <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">www.consumersinternational.org</a> | <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#999999">Read our <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print this email
unless necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>