[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

Izumi AIZU iza at anr.org
Mon Jun 4 03:09:32 EDT 2007


Thank you Bertrand for your reply.


2007/6/4, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>:
> Fair questions, Izumi,
>
> You wrote : "Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and
> proceed both? Or am I naive that we first need to resolve the process in
> order to  proceed to the substance?"
>
> My spontaneous answer is :
> - both issues (process/structure and content/speakers) must be dealt with at
> the same time, in a co-evolving manner , but nothing is a prerequisite for
> discussing the speakers for Rio,

I understand and agree that. In terms of substance, ie content/speakers,
are we, as Civil Society, or Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus in
particular, trying to come up with a single voice for the Rio IGF.
(Again so sorry for my ignorance since I have not read all the positings
here. )

As far as I remember, there was no attempt as such at Athens.

I mean different parties among CS made separate efforts which is of course
OK. So the question may be:

Do we, should we or could we act as a single voice at Rio IGF?
If so where and how?

Honestly, I am not so sure if we CAN do that. IT will be worth
a try, but given the limited time and possible merit, I am not
so keen.

best,

izumi

> - as a matter of fact, the IGF process is an issue that the IGF can discuss
> itself, and the emerging "fifth theme", will necessarily evolve towards
> that,
> - in terms of "mechanisms to separate the two issues" (of process and
> substance), the first method is to continue separate threads on this list,
> the other one is to help those interested to interact more closely on these
> topics.
>
> To echo Adam's comment, it may also be time to make this discussion a bit
> more multi-stakeholder. Although I know a certain number of government
> representatives are actually lurking on this list (and that's good), they do
> not feel comfortable expressing themselves.
>
> Would people be interested in a workshop in Rio on these issues ? how could
> it be prepared ? Could it have a more "open Forum format" to engage as many
> participants as possible, rather than a mere "panel" type ?
>
> Nowhere else than on this list has the discussion been conducted on these
> themes at that level of depth. Those interested could discuss this on a
> specific thread. The Giganet is also obviously a space gathering academics
> interested in those issues. Likewise for the IGP. I am certain some
> government representatives would be willing to get involved in a sincere
> discussion. We certainly can find a few actors to co-organize something.
>
> The key challenge will be to frame the process discussion in a way that
> covers the preoccupation of the different parties. This means both a
> workshop title and a list of sub-themes or facets.
>
> Let's think about it.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
> On 6/1/07, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> > I tend to agree with Adam, too.
> >
> > However, I also think the process/structure question is important
> > and worth to discuss, I don't think it's a waste of time, but substantive
> > discussion on issues and contents/programs/speakers are of
> > equal, if not more, importance for us.
> >
> > Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and
> > proceed both? Or am I naiive that we first need to resolve the process in
> > order to  proceed to the substance?
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
> > izumi
> >
> > 2007/6/1, Adam Peake < ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> > > At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is
> > > >distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more
> > > >properly be discussing the programme:
> > >
> > >
> > > Couldn't agree more.  We are wasting time and opportunities.
> > >
> > > Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another
> > > couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF.  There is no agenda.
> > > There are no speakers.  There is a call for workshops, but we do not
> > > know on what subjects.  We have been told some workshops will be
> > > linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these
> > > linked "sub-theme" workshops.
> > >
> > > Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we
> > > should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical
> > > Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of
> > > "best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas
> > > for workshops, these are things we do well.
> > >
> > > On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the
> > > one who wanted the IGF.  Other stakeholders took it as a compromise,
> > > IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from
> > > happening. They aren't going to move where want on process.  Our
> > > egalitarian vision isn't really shared.
> > >
> > > And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil
> > > society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look
> > > at Openness in particular, btw < igf-greece2006.org> is now being
> > > parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working
> > > groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF
> > > itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we
> > > were at the end of the Tunis Summit.
> > >
> > > I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate
> > > discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop
> > > proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners.   These are
> > > 200-300 person meeting rooms.  Quite large.  And free (no fee.)
> > >
> > > No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet
> > > Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC
> > > anyone?)
> > >
> > >
> > > >if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly
> > > >should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of
> > > >outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's  'messages from the
> > > >IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What
> > > >other issues are there which could be matched with specific
> > > >provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome
> > > >that could be contained in a 'message'?
> > >
> > >
> > > What's wrong with just better reporting.  Can giganet provide
> > > rapporteurs?  They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not
> > > use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to
> > > encourage more dynamic coalitions.
> > >
> > >
> > > >I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN
> > > >SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should  move on
> > > >to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with
> > > >Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings
> > > >of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy
> > > >war with the US, with  Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as
> > > >potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of
> > > >substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think
> > > >we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil
> > > >society liasion for the Rio iGF  asap. And we should communicate
> > > >formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A
> > > >communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how
> > > >to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable
> > > >manner.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would turn this around.  If we are going to make a proposal on
> > > process, begin by working with the other stakeholders.
> > > Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder.
> > >
> > > Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least
> > > to the EU governments?  If not, we'll be wasting our time sending
> > > anything to the Secretary General.  We might even do ourselves harm
> > > by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary
> > > General proposes isn't what we asked for.
> > >
> > >
> > > >There is only a month to get this together and given how long the
> > > >IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agree.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Willie
> > > >
> > > >Sent via ...  deleted :-)
> > >
> ____________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> >
> >             Institute for HyperNetwork Society
> >             Kumon Center, Tama University
> >                             * * * * *
> >              << Writing the Future of the History >>
> >                               www.anr.org
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
> Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
>
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
> Exupéry
> ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")


-- 
                      >> Izumi Aizu <<

             Institute for HyperNetwork Society
             Kumon Center, Tama University
                             * * * * *
              << Writing the Future of the History >>
                               www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
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