[bestbits] AW: [governance] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Thx Jeremy,
 
I fully support your basic approach. One argument, which will be used by the ITU (and some of its member states) is that the WTPF (or the UNGIS controlled WSIS Forum) is better than the IGF, is that this  (UN led) platforms produce concrete output in form of agreed "Opinions" or "Joint Statements". This argument will come back in the UNGA 2014 when the mandate of the IGF - which ends in 2015 - has to be renewed. 
 
To counterbalance this argument the MAG has to take the IGF Improvement WG recommendation seriously to produce concrete output, as you have said correctly. The IGF mandate from the TA allows recommendation, as appropriate, on emerging issues. Today you can nearly all new Internet related questions define as "emerging issues". So - as you have pointed out - there is no need to change the mandate. It is up to the MAG to take the next steps and to introduce some procedures and mechanisms which would allow to produce concrete output. 
 
I have argued already since the MAG meeting in 2007 (before Rio de Janeiro) to introduce a new category in form of "messages". "IGF Messages" would not have the political burden of a "recommendation" (which is pre-defined in a UN context) and would also not duplicate ITU´s "opinions". BTW, a growing number of regional and national IGFs are now producing "Messages". EURODIG, the European IGF had "Messages from Madrid" (2010), "Messeges from Belgrade" (2011) and "Messages from Stockholm" (2012). The German IGF did send "Messages from Berlin" to the IGFs in Vilnjus, Nairobi and Baku, So it would be part of an organic process if the IGF moves towards the production of IGF messages. 
 
Here is my proposal I renewed in the UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG in 2011 when I was its member. http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/Wolfgang_Kleinwachter.pdf 
 
With other words I would not propose that the IGF would start to produce "opinions" to duplicate the WTPF. However I fully support that the substance of the rejected WPTF Opinion 7 should be discussed in the IGF context.
 
Another effort in this direction is underway in the MAG Working Group on Internet Governance Principles which was established by the MAG meeting in Paris in February 2013 with a mandate to prepare the relevant Bali Plenary. Such a MAG led working group (or working groups), chaired by a MAG member and with a very limited mandate, could become a mechanism which can develop procedures how to produce output in a multistakeholder environment. This is a complicated innovation for policy making among governmental and non-govenrmental stakeholders, but it is worth to start it and test it out. 
 
Wolfgang
 
________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
Gesendet: Mo 20.05.2013 17:22
An: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement



Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> The same text in clean form is now open for endorsements here:
>
> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/

Thanks again, Jeremy, for this good initiative.

Hoping that this will result in some positive momentum...

Greetings,
Norbert

--
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept