[bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
David Cake
dave at difference.com.au
Thu Sep 4 06:37:51 EDT 2014
On 1 Sep 2014, at 11:38 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF, maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding, one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people' without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously.
It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature.
In the panel today about the ICANN Affirmation of Commitments agreement with the US (and how it might be globalised), I made the point that I had participated in one of ICANNs Affirmation of Commitments Review Teams, and absolutely nothing about that 18 month or so process was effected by the US special role in mandating that review. Sometimes, while ICANNs US status might not be ideal, it can be tolerated because the practical consequences of that relationship are very minimal, certainly easily tolerable, in many practical situations. The same applies to IGFs UN status (which brings a range of restrictions on what can be talked about, not to mention a guarantee of dull ministerial speeches).
While mindful of the symbolic issues, I think George is pointing out that closer links with the UN has some real practical consequences, that may decrease the openness of the IGF, because there are gatekeepers to participation in UN processes.
I assume your mention of the WEF is somewhat facetious given your opposition to the WEF, but I think it s worth examining why. From my point of view, the openness to participation of multi-stakeholder processes is vital. Sure, regular, ongoing participation in something like ICANN requires funding, with all the issues that raises. But literally physical participation is open to anyone who can physically turn up to meetings, and remote participation can reach anyone with internet access. The is quite emphatically not the case with WEF - if I happened to be having a holiday in the Swiss Alps, I couldn't just pop by Davos. I don't think opposition to WEF for its symbolic role (association with neo-liberal trade policies, association with wealthy elites at ski resorts, etc) is particularly valuable -- after all, the IGF is a broad multistakeholder meeting that is supposed to have a very wide range of stakeholders and views presented, so the WEF should be as welcome to participate as any other stakeholder. IGF should not be for the elite represented by WEF, but it should include those elite views along with the bottom up. But we should be wary of WEF processes because its global forum model is NOT open, and the IGF (as with other multistakeholder processess) should be as open as we can make it.
I accept Parminders concerns about WEF being highly problematic despite its multi-stakeholder nature, as its a gated forum, an echo chamber for a particular ideology, but I don't accept that this is an intrinsic problem with multi-stakeholderism - rather I think it shows that openness, transparency, and accountability are essential tools to keep multi-stakeholder processes working for the public interest.
David
parminder
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF
totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on
IGF.
Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also
long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government,
besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily
report.
Better not to go through this path.
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
All,
There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread. The UN is
not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions
regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions
made by the UN General Assembly.
Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a
non-speaking participant, in the IGF. There was a rumor in Athens (2006)
that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the
time who were working the event were told to let management know if he
showed up so that he could be denied admission.
Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine. It was
finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to
further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.' This
delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code
TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
I speak from personal involvement in both of those events. There are
probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are
not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic,
bottom up, participatory activity. Please, in your enthusiasm, do not
increase -- and decrease if possible -- your reliance upon UN
administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
George
On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming
a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from
other sources.
--c.a.
On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
I support the call.
It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
funding for it. Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
stable source of funding.
BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated
body
with institutional funding.
Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, IT for Change and some
developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN,
measure.
parminder
On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
funding that is transparently accounted for.
cheers
Anne
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
<ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
IGFs.
e
Eduardo
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
<joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
Agree.
At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
"There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
(IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
that these recommendations will be
implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
inter-alia:
a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
creative
ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
policy options;
b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
IGF, including
through a broadened donor base, is essential;
d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
discussions
between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
discussing both long
standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
the identification of
possible ways to address them."
We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
best
joana
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
<joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
this idea count me on to support as I can.
_
João Carlos Caribé
(021) 8761 1967
(021) 4042 7727
Skype joaocaribe
Enviado via iPad
> Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
<jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>
> Hi all,
>
> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
BB meeting.
>
> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
impression that we might be able to draft a
cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
community and the private sector. (Individual governments
support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
possible within the few days available to coordiante
enough signatures by governments to make this an all
inclusive statement.)
>
> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
support in civil society.
>
> jeanette
>
> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
someone be so kind to forward it?
>
____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-- --
Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
--
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema
*
*
*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org
<http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/582061cd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/582061cd/attachment.sig>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list