[governance] Caucus statement in Athens

William Drake drake at hei.unige.ch
Tue Oct 17 06:41:35 EDT 2006 

Hi,

While I'd be happy to be proven wrong, I tend to think that we're unlikely
to develop and agree a strong new statement on complex substantive IG issues
in the time remaining.  But there is a rather easy alternative.  As has been
discussed here off and on in recent months and reiterated today by
Parminder, it's uncontestable that the IGF is thus far a rather different
beast from what was envisioned by the WGIG Report and Tunis Agenda.  There
are of course all kinds of reasons for this, some of which are
understandable given the constraints and the IGF's 'fragile flower' status,
others of which are related to power dynamics and merit a less generous
assessment.  But we probably shouldn't try to get into a critique of these,
since that might prove divisive internally and externally.  Instead, we
could do a simple reiteration and endorsement of the mandate governments
nominally agreed to in the TA (or alternatively, the caucus' July 2005 text
on what we thought the IGF should be, which is pretty similar to the TA)
that then asks Parminder's question, "how does IGF plan to do it?" per
function listed.  To this could be added another bit previously discussed in
the caucus and agreed in the MMWG, namely the point on IGF as an ongoing
process rather than solely an annual conference, and hence the potential
utility of working groups (oops, sorry, not supposed to say those
words---"dynamic coalitions" is apparently the term of choice now)
comprising parties interested in discussing and proposing things for
consideration at Rio, etc.  This approach would require little new writing,
build on prior caucus consensus, and be both constructive and cheekily
subversive vis any control freaks opposed to truly open dialogue.  It could
be read out in the Nov. 2 plenary on Taking Stock & the Way Forward.

Bill


> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:59:34 +0200
> To: Governance Caucus <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens
> 
> Personally speaking - not as interim process coordinator.
> 
> I think it would be good if the the IGC could do 2 things:
> 
> - Produce a statement, of questions and expectations as indicate
> below for release before the Athens meeting
> 
> - Produce an in depth statement after the Athens meeting reviewing
> the first year, analyzing the meeting and the direction being taken
> and outlining the IGC goals and plans for itself and the IGF in the
> coming year.
> 
> By then we should be done with this transition, and the IGF will have
> had its chance to make its mark on where it is going - so it will be
> time for the IGC to act.
> 
> at least that is my personal feeling.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 17 okt 2006, at 10.57, Parminder wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I agree with Vittorio's scheme of two meetings...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>> a possible process statement to be given afterwards in the
>> plenary (which should, anyway, be first drafted and discussed on list)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, we should give a statement on IGC to the plenary and outside.
>> IGF is too big an opportunity to be missed..
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> However, I also think that it should be possible to agree on this
>> list ­ in the next few days - on a short statement at least on the
>> IGF process (if not on some substantive matters ­ even if briefly
>> stating public interest orientation etc) - and what we expect out
>> of it, and what is our level of satisfaction over its current
>> institutional form....
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The way IGF is organized and is increasing describing itself has
>> some problems about its ability and effectiveness in fulfilling all
>> the points of its mandate under para 72 of Tunis Agenda.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In this regard please see the latest statement of Nitin Desai in
>> London at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6037345.stm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> (quote)
>> 
>> ³The forum has no membership, it's an open door, a town hall, all
>> views are welcome.²
>> 
>> "But it's not a decision-making body. We have no members so we have
>> no power to make decision."
>> 
>> (ends)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For example how does it plan to ³Interface with appropriate
>> intergovernmental organizations and other institutions on matters
>> under their purview² or to ³advice all stakeholder² or ³Promote and
>> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in
>> Internet governance processes² and few such mandates that require a
>> more active role than being an international conference on IGFŠ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> How does IGF plan to do it, since it says that it has no members
>> and no Œbody¹ so as to say, and is merely a Œspace¹.  What is the
>> special status or legitimacy of this Œspace¹ and if there is any
>> such specialty about it ­ how is it proposed to be expressedŠ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> (we may even just list such questions form IGC and ask them
>> officially on IGC¹s behalf in open house. Maybe with a list
>> forwarded to the secretariat earlier)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> After WSIS, a top US officials said something to the effect that
>> things have turned out well for the US (and allied economic and
>> political) interests, but that we ­ meaning these interests - need
>> to be careful over 2006 as well ­ and that 2006 is an important
>> year. He obviously meant WSIS follow-up processes, where
>> Œunpleasant¹ issues may again raise their head. Id say, as things
>> are going, they are having it even better than they had it during
>> the WSIS, and any strong  public interest, or south oriented
>> advocacy has not build up in post-WSIS spaces.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The first meeting of IGF is an important occasion which still have
>> (I hope) some possibility of determining IGF¹s character in a
>> meaningful way whereby IGF still has some status, role and
>> effectiveness beyond being an annual IG conference..
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Any effort to get this done needs to come from IGC, and we should
>> not declare it lost even before we have tried the least bitŠ. We
>> must recognise we represent, in some ways, the global civil
>> society, since there aren¹t many others in this space, and we have
>> corresponding responsibilitiesŠ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________________
>> 
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> 
>> IT for Change, Bangalore
>> 
>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>> 
>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
>> 
>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
>> 
>> www.ITforChange.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>>> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org]
>> 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:58 PM
>> 
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Adam Peake ha scritto:
>> 
>>>> Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating
>> 
>>> please :-)
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> You know, that might be an empty set! :-) Anyway, I would
>> 
>>> suggest that,
>> 
>>> if possible, we keep the two things parted.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> One might be a short and small coordination meeting among the
>> 
>>> current
>> 
>>> caucus members, where we discuss practical issues such as the
>> 
>>> election
>> 
>>> process (and candidates, if you like) and a possible process
>> 
>>> statement
>> 
>>> to be given afterwards in the plenary (which should, anyway,
>> 
>>> be first
>> 
>>> drafted and discussed on list).
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Another one might be a short but broader informational
>> 
>>> meeting, open to
>> 
>>> everyone in a big room, aimed at informing all civil society
>> 
>>> and
>> 
>>> individual participants of the opportunity to participate
>> 
>>> through us. We
>> 
>>> could just come up with a set of slides about what we did and
>> 
>>> how you
>> 
>>> can join, and do outreach. It could actually turn into a sort
>> 
>>> of
>> 
>>> "introduction to new participants to this process", a bit
>> 
>>> like ICANN's
>> 
>>> introduction at the beginning, and so it could actually be a
>> 
>>> service to
>> 
>>> the entire Forum. But then, this would require a big room on
>> 
>>> the first
>> 
>>> day, and I don't know whether that's feasible. On the other
>> 
>>> hand, the
>> 
>>> other, "internal" meeting could be moved out of the critical
>> 
>>> path, for
>> 
>>> example at dinner or just before it, after the Forum ends for
>> 
>>> the first day.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>>> Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal
>> 
>>> plaza (and
>> 
>>>> food.)
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> And don't forget about food... people less crazy than us tend
>> 
>>> to put it
>> 
>>> as a high priority item :-)
>> 
>>> --
>> 
>>> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a]
>> 
>>> bertola.eu.org]<-----
>> 
>>> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> 
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> 
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> 
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

More information about the Governance mailing list