[governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting

[William Drake]

Hi Carlos,

My presentation was based on the following data points, all of which have
been discussed here before (I'm very tired and don't want to dig through
the list archive, so please forgive any imprecision):

1.  The caucus first expressed it support for something like a forum
(think we called it an observatory) in our input to the CS alternative
declaration to the December 2003 Summit in Geneva.  In the pre-WGIG period
to follow, Wolfgang, myself, and perhaps others, don't remember, wrote and
distributed pieces and gave talks along the same lines in settings where
caucus people were present, meetings and online, and I don't recall anyone
contesting the idea that there should be a multistakeholder mechanism for
dialogue, analysis, and trend monitoring of the IG "broad agenda".

2.  The idea was subsequently taken up in WGIG.  CS people played a
prominent role in driving the discussion.   My understanding was that all
of us supported it.  I don't recall you arguing against it, may have
missed a language nuance.  I never heard anyone else in our group indicate
that the concept was contested among us.  If I remember correctly, the
Brazilian model you circulated called for a new body to oversee ICANN, but
I never understood this to mean you opposed the forum, which is not about
ICANN oversight and is hence a separate matter.

3.  The WGIG report was released.  At the release event, members in
attendance drafted language saying we strongly supported the WGIG's
proposal.  We sent it to the list, and a couple of people---Vittorio, I
think Danny, think there was another person---expressed various
reservations, i.e. Vittorio wanted particular design parameters to be
specified if we were going to endorse it.  So we changed the language from
"strongly support" to "support" and sent that back to the list.  Perhaps
given the press of events on the ground, I believe this compromise was
deemed acceptable, or at least did not engender further objections.

4.  Weeks later, with no contestation in between, the revised and softened
release event language on the forum was then included and specified a bit
in a draft reply to the WGIG report.  This was circulated and debated on
the list for a week or so (?), with various people offering inputs and
edits.  A couple people offered additions to the list of functions it
might perform. The caucus response was finalized and submitted to the ITU
and put online.  At no point along the way do I recall you or anyone else
saying no, stop, we should not support the forum concept.

5.  Now, more than a month later, I gave a presentation making the same
points as in the previously agreed text: the caucus "supports" the forum,
the forum would help be based on inclusive peer level MS participation,
should not be anchored in any existing specialized international
organization, should not negotiate binding instruments, etc.  Folks here
in Geneva rushing to assemble statements thought it was fine.   I'm not
aware that Adam saw his introductory statement as indicating that mine was
nonconsensual, as you suggest.  I had no idea you objected because I don't
recall you ever objecting.  I don't think that's just me; if someone here
had known you objected, I suspect they'd have said so, and we'd have
discussed what to do then.

6.  Given the process summarized above, I don't think it's accurate to say
that the presentation was based on "a vision which is not shared by many
civil society organizations."   In fact, looking beyond the caucus, I
don't recall anyone contesting the concept on the broader plenary list,
either.  Perhaps "by not many CSOs" you mean the Brazilian groups you
mention, which to my knowledge have not been involved in the caucus and
have not made any statements here opposing it.  Again, I think if someone
else had known there were CS groups that felt this way, it'd have come up
before.  Or maybe you yourself could have said it, before rather than
attacking me after the fact.

7.  These process points aside, on substance, if I understand the below,
you're viewing this issue through the lens of ICANN oversight.  The WGIG
report specified the forum as a dialogue etc body dealing with the broad
agenda of IG, and *separately* put forward four options for oversight. 
The texts that have been around for a couple months and included in the
caucus response to the report are also clear that the forum is not seen as
an ICANN oversight body.  But I guess you want a new and strong oversight
body, and think it should also fulfill the forum function---I thought we
opposed one entity for all issues and functions, but whatever---and on
this latter basis see the forum as an undesirable and weak alternative. 
Fine, and variations of this are certainly the first preference of various
developing country governments (well, the second preference, after having
the ITU do everything).  But it is also fair to say that that is a far
more contentious idea than the forum, including I suspect, here.  If
there's a groundswell of support in the caucus for major intergovernmental
involvement in ICANN oversight, this is certainly not reflected in our
texts, either.

Finally, there's one other difference between the forum concept and the
uber-body I guess you want.  The forum has a 60% chance of happening if
opposition from the USG, certain other governments, and the business
community can be overcome.  As such, I think it's in CS' interest to try
to make sure that it is configured in a manner that is consistent with the
points previously agreed in the caucus text.

Fraternal regards,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of carlos a. afonso
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:51 PM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann; WSIS Internet GovernanceCaucus; Robert Guerra;
> Adam Peake
> Cc: magaly at greatvideo.com; wdrake at ictsd.ch
> Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement
> oftoday'scaucus meeting
>
>
> People,
>
> Sorry for not being physically more present -- trying to work with the
> Brazilians as the events unravel at subcommittee A, which is the reason
> of my earlier arrival in Geneva.
>
> I would like to express my concern (which is the concern of the
> Brazilian NGOs working on Internet/ICT governance issues as well, like
> INDECS, the Digital TV civil society caucus, CDI-PE, Rits, the
> Softwarelivre.org group, several other members of the CRIS-Brasil
> campaign and so on) that, contrary to what the caucus managed to present
> in subcomm B (a unified statement built by a consensus effort, albeit in
> a rush, thanks to the great work of the Ralf-Bertrand duo among others),
> our presentation in subcomm A was piecemeal and the specific part on
> Internet governance mechanisms not based on consensus.
>
> I am afraid the presentation by Bill Drake is based on a vision which is
> not shared by many civil society organizations. We understand we do not
> want a "revolution" -- and this is mostly consensus -- but we need some
> significant changes in the mechanisms, first, to consider the set of
> priority issues which are not in the current ICANN-based system, and
> second, to take into account the need for practical actions regarding
> paragraph 48 of the WGIG report, among other reasons. If we endorse the
> statement as a consensus, we are in practice almost doing what ICANN
> wants us to do, ie., defend the creation of an innocuous
> consultative/advisory forum which might never be really taken seriously.
>
> I understand the opening statement by Adam tried to show this did not
> represent consensus, but I did a survey later on among Southern
> delegates (Brazil, India, Iran, Cuba among others) and most of them
> understood otherwise. Many of these delegates also wrongly associate
> model 2 of the WGIG report with the civil society caucus -- we must
> recall model 2 was built under the influence of ICANN-related people and
> business reps in the WGIG. Do we really want this perception to stay?
> What will be our consensus position?
>
> Just to make clear, my position (to which the Brazilian position has
> basically converged) was expressed in my "parallel" paper written during
> the last months of the WGIG. What are the other positions in the caucus
> on this which we could analyze and try to build a consolidated/consensus
> position?
>
> Or we just leave things as they are?
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance