[bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions

[Nnenna Nwakanma]

Hi people,

The opinion from Brazil is on "Operationalizing the role of Government in
the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance", which is not the
same as "Role of Government in Internet Governance"

Depending on where you are engaging from, and at what levels one engages,
opinions can differ.  Because I am engaged at National, Sub-regional,
regional and global Internet Governance process, I am inclined toward
thinking that the Br opinion is worth more discussions and even adoption.
Between Thursday and Friday, I had a lot of side consultations with many
who were physically at WTPF.

The key issue may not be "Time to discuss"  the Etherpad draft put it
initially on http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions, so I have added some
tiny edits.

The issue is the same: with WCIT, WTPF and possible other Fora. That of
government engaging constructively, with recognition of  other stakeholders
and their place as equals within the MS process of IG.

There countries where governments DO NOT engage at all.  There are others
where government is ALL.

I believe that the Br opinion is one that  gives the basis for something
better


On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:32 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Jeremy
>
> On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote:
>
> I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is
> relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to
> work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work.  Even ISOC
> and the United States indicated that they would probably support it
> although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments.  We got quite
> close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all
> stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the
> IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though
> this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment).  Also I can't
> agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to
> integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder
> Internet governance processes is a worthy one.  Perhaps the wording can be
> further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do
> that.
>
>
> I have a different understanding of what we saw go down at WTPF.  I don't
> think we got close to agreement on it at all, and that the actors mentioned
> said they'd want line by line amendments not in order to continue
> discussion of this particular text, but rather to avoid it.  Moreover,
>  while I understand your institutional and substantive interests in pushing
> this, there may be some constraints that merit consideration.  For example,
>
> First, the WTPF was convened pursuant to a Plenipotentiary decision and
> may be discussed at the 11-21 June Council meeting.  The WTPF Chairman's
> Report includes the Brazil-based discussion as agreed and notes twice the
> recommendation of WG 3's chair that the discussion be taken up in the CWG
> on Internet Policy.  In his closing statement, Toure called for the CWG to
> be "opened up" on the same basis as the WTPF as Sweden proposed last year
> so the issues could be discussed in a manner ITU calls multistakeholder.
>  Meanwhile, as was noted in the meeting, there are no mechanisms for the
> ITU to formally forward to another entity a (failed) proposal of one of its
> bodies for consideration.  So while governments who wanted to set aside the
> proposal suggested we should all "talk about the issues" at IGF, the ITU
> probably will still go forward with its own process in some manner.   In
> which context, many countries (and not necessarily just developing
> countries) might object to the idea of the IGF somehow formally taking up
> an internal ITU text, especially one still under discussion.  Bottom line,
> I can see some governments saying sure let's chit chat about the broad
> topic at an IGF main session, but do you really think they'd agree to a
> formal debate and adoption process regarding an ITU-originated document?
>
> Second, the original Brazilian proposal was pretty incendiary because it
> came from Anatel, which has a stake in promoting the ITU's role in Internet
> and everything else.  Other parts of the Brazilian government we deal with
> in IGF, ICANN etc. have somewhat different orientations, and it seemed in
> Geneva that this was a slightly awkward matter.  I spoke with the
> delegation Wednesday evening about cutting out the non-starter stuff,
> acknowledging the role of other bodies like the RIRs in facilitating
> participation, and just saying ITU should play its role alongside others,
> and it was clear they and they wanted a way out and were open to such an
> approach.  I believe they had pretty much the same conversation with many
> others.  Next morning they came back with a text that says, well, ITU
> should play a role alongside others, and even this couldn't go forward.  So
> while Brazil undoubtedly remains keenly interested in the broad topic being
> discussed further in multiple settings, are we sure it'd consider this
> particular late night text to be the vehicle it wants to carry the load?
>  They and other like minded governments might like to recalibrate and work
> out a formulation in consultation with other partners.  Brazil's been one
> of CS' best partners and supporters, so at a minimum I'd first seek
> dialogue with them to see what they're thinking could be the way forward,
> rather than presume to just unilaterally propose an IGF process about their
> failed Opinion.
>
> Third, I don't see how the MAG could possibly agree by COB Thursday to
> restructure the IGF process so as to enable the process you seek.  We
> already have identified candidate main session topics at the February
> meeting in Paris; the new one you're suggesting would involve substantial
> restructuring of the IGF's agenda and modalities that no governments or
> other actors have discussed internally, much less taken a position on; the
> MAG was just renewed and has to reboot with new members; and probably a
> majority of MAG members are spending today trying to burn through and grade
> 419 pages of workshop proposals by tomorrow so we can decide on them
> Wednesday-Thursday.  The MAG will be rather preoccupied, to put it mildly.
>
> Again, I understand your interest in seeing the IGF reformed to do this
> sort of thing, and in the broad topic addressed by the Brazilian proposal,
> but all in all it's not clear trying to make this happen is going to be a
> good use of peoples' time.  Restructuring the IGF and enhancing the role of
> ITU and governments in IG are both big topics that would probably require
> longer processes of consideration and development than is possible for the
> Bali program.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130519/32eb3858/attachment.htm>