[bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3

Sat May 3 21:40:29 EDT 2014

Thanks for this summary, very interesting.  I think it would be unwise to neglect a chance to move the yardsticks forward on enhanced cooperation, which means (probably, or at least IMHO) seizing the good bits from the attached document, cross  fertilizing with the good bits from netmundial, reminding everyone how far the Internet has evolved since Tunis (and therefore the people must too), and building a platform for rough consensus on multistakeholder action.  This would be a welcome input to discussion on other lists, where the interaction at times ranges from arid to bloated, but all in all this will help it be more productive,  with substantive action items like this to build on.  Personally, while I sure understand that everyone is tired, I don’t believe we can sit on our hands until the end of 2014, there are too many things we need to push to the next level.
Thanks
Stephanie
On May 3, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 
> And then there was the third day.
> The last day.
> 
> We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated
> arguments.  Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached
> consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed
> was to reach full consensus.
> 
> As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full
> consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must
> confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting
> illusion.
> 
> We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups
> discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do next.
> 
> We had lunch.
> We talked,
> and we talked.
> 
> After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were
> not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting.
> 
> So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report.
> 
> Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report!
> 
> We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports.
> 
> Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report
> and be fair.
> 
> Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to
> be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep.
> 
> We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by
> the correspondence group.  Some of us wanted it to continue and become a
> living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the
> CSTD.  Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be
> dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had
> not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill
> 
> (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please
> forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the
> meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy
> volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their
> efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the
> workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a plague.)
> 
> As for the future, there may be further meetings.
> There may not be.
> If there are, they may occur this year.
> Or they may occur next year.
> 
> I personally hope that we continue the work.  but I hope we wait until
> after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all
> stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that
> NETmundial presents.  And after the IGF, which I hope learns something
> from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is
> going to do.
> 
> I thought the meetings were valuable.  I think the participants, and I
> hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are
> part of, have a better understanding now than they did before.
> 
> And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of
> the couplings at the meeting where wonderful.  For example the KSA and
> Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this
> meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of
> marginalized groups and a host of other issues.  It is good that there
> are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together.  And
> to see civil society members working closely with governments and with
> business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we
> disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on
> the few things we do disagree with.
> 
> Now I sound almost maudlin!
> 
> One last thing:
> 
> There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick
> Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_.  While we never did, as
> we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a
> possible offering.  Several of us from civil society, though not all by
> any means, did develop one.  While I will leave it for the others who
> worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put
> themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this
> compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of
> ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion.
> 
> Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now
> Who knows what the future will bring.
> 
> ----------------------
> The Opinion
> 
> This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants
> including group members Avri Doria, ...
> 
> ---
> Definitions
> 
> Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral
> process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise
> and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full
> participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the
> Internet at all levels.
> 
> Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any
> person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully.
> 
> Equal  footing: the recognition, enjoyment  or exercise by all
> stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of
> the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes.  In Internet
> governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and
> responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with
> reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by
> governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth,
> contributions should  be judged on their quality, and not by the number
> of people that a representative may claim.
> 
> Possible outcome:
> 
> There is support within civil society for establishing a
> multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing  monitoring and
> analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the  on-demand sharing
> of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences  that governments
> and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view
> this as a first step,  building on the work of the Correspondence Group
> of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support
> within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder
> coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue
> or venues to develop  further policy as required. This could be
> accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate.
> 
> This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such
> the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission
> on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable
> venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the
> NETmundial Multistakeholder statement.
> 
> The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda.
> The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted
> from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for
> ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an
> impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet
> governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder
> models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in
> line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a
> static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it  becoming ever
> more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be
> treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build
> our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the
> area of Internet governance.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits