AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting

Bertrand de La Chapelle bdelachapelle at gmail.com
Tue May 29 13:43:34 EDT 2007


Dear all,

For your information, the hesitations about the closed/open nature of the
meetings on 24-25 also raised similar concerns among some governmental
delegations who would have liked to participate but did not turn up thinking
they were closed.

These are the comments I circulated to them in response. I suppose they are
as valid for the IGC as for governments. There is no conspiracy here I
believe, just circumstances, as Adam rightly said.

"For information, European union members who attended (in full or only
partially due to other meetings like CSTD) the extended informal
consultations on IGF were : Germany, Latvia, Finland, Greece and France. The
European Commission was also there, as well as Canada and Australia. A good
debriefing would certainly be useful (see below).

On why this happened, everything comes from the incapacity of the UN
Secretary General to make a formal announcement reconducting the MAG.
This put Nitin Desai in a very delicate situation. He certainly could have
handled it in a more explicit manner and the frustration of colleagues that
could have been there is understandable. Some communication to missions here
may indeed have been useful.

But having no consultations at all (missed opportuity) or gathering only the
members of the now defunct MAG (with the risk of being attacked for acting
without legal ground and excluding some government actors) would have been
actually worse.

 In terms of substance, the discussions may have been intense and may have
ventured in different territory than usual. But overall, such discussions
were useful and constructive among a reasonably balanced and diverse group
of people. Outcomes are in no way final anyway and the secretariat and Nitin
Desai will certainly welcome further comments. And, as Bill mentions, there
is a remote feed available.

Altogether, one can also consider that the active participation of China and
Russia (Brazil is naturally active being the host) is also a demonstration
that they consider the IGF an important space. They will certainly engage
actively and other actors need to be prepared for it. Their ultimate
influence on the orientation of the Forum will only be in inverse proportion
of the clarity of our own objectives.

As a result, the most useful avenue is to make a very thorough assesment of
the emergent dynamics and identify constructive proposals to influence the
Forum structure, content and working methods."

A final point. To a governmental delegate who was advocating a much more
structured IGF in Rio, arguing that repetition of a mere Athens -like "talk
shop" would be a failure, I indicated that there are two ways to kill the
IGF : 1) keeping indefinitely the format so loose and informal that no
progress on controversial issues can be made (his "talk-shop" criticism),
but also 2) introducing UN-style negotiation of texts that would bring back
all the rigidity and posturing that we need to avoid. All stakeholders must
carefully progress between these two pitfalls, knowing that it is in
everybody's interest to make this very fragile experiment work.

The IGF is a unique space for debate. And thorough debate (not only
elections) is the essence of the democratic approach, as Nobel Price winner
Amartya Sen wrote, quoting J.S. Mill's definition of democracy as
"government by discussion". Let us make the IGF the place where all actors
can discuss precisely the issues that raise their concern. Not to solve them
right away, but to explore their various facets and understand each other's
perspective first. This is what "informed deliberation" is about.

Best

Bertrand

On 5/27/07, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:


> Milton wrote :

>Interesting report, Kieren, thanks for it.
> >It is yet another example of how the lack of an institutionalized MAG
> >leads to a lack of fairness. Some people are told the meeting is closed,
> >others find out its open. The reason for opening it (to the select few
> >who happened to be in the know or who were hanging around that day) was
> >determined by some behind-the-scenes pressures.
>
>
>
>
> Nitin /Markus still had some hope at the end of the Wednesday
> consultation that the SG's office would issue a press release about
> membership of the advisory group overnight.  Had that happened then
> the private advisory group meeting would have taken place as planned.
>
> Thursday morning, no news from New York, Nitin had no option but to
> hold an open meeting. No inside pressure, Nitin simply said in the
> situation he had no right to hold a private meeting so called it
> open.  That's how the UN is in such situations.
>
> Best I remember (Jeanette I think agrees, Ralf disagrees) the
> electronic sign boards in the Palais used to announce the days'
> schedule showed the meeting as Open.  The boards give details of all
> meetings going on that day (meeting name, room, status etc.)  The
> sign on the door of the meeting said open.  As soon as Nitin made the
> announcement in the meeting itself Avri sent a note to the governance
> list.
>
> Not a matter of insiders and select few. Just circumstance.
>
>
>
> >Surely we can all see that this is a poor way to proceed.
>
>
> It surly is poor way to succeed, costly too... But no one I spoke to
> in Geneva could think what the problem in New York might be.  It was
> unusual.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >  >>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 5/25/2007 7:20:52 PM >>>
> >Wrt to the two days of meetings after the open 23 May meeting.
> >
> >I'm sure we'll figure out what happened over time but from my
> >perspective:
> >Nitin Desai was put under pressure from a number of governments over
> >the
> >issue and influence of the Advisory Group during the 23 May meeting.
> >
> >He downplayed the influence the Group had (read it on the transcript);
> >this
> >lead to the possibility that the two days of (closed) Advisory Group
> >meetings planned afterwards might be open. I asked at the end of the
> >Wednesday meeting whether the meeting would be open - no one was sure.
> >
> >So I turned up on the Thursday morning to see if I would be turned
> >away
> >and/or if I would be asked to leave if I had sat down.
> >
> >Nitin then made it clear at the start of the meeting that it was an
> >open
> >meeting (although you wouldn't know that unless you were already in the
> >room
> >- and the room number required chasing down). There was an exchange
> >with
> >Janis Karklins over this because Janis wished to invite people in if
> >indeed
> >it was open.
> >
> >Clearly something was happening behind the scenes. I don't know what it
> >was.
> >But I did think that the meeting themselves were the most interesting
> >of the
> >whole IGF process so far.
> >
> >
> >
> >Kieren
> >(speaking as an individual)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM
> >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath
> >Subject: Re: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting
> >
> >>(on the informal MAG meeting)
> >>
> >>Adam Peake wrote:
> >>>the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an
> >open
> >>>meeting in the schedule at the Palais.  As soon as it was open it
> >was
> >>>open.
> >>Interestingly, it was and still is announced as "privee" on the boards
> >at
> >>the Palais.
> >
> >
> >Was it... my mistake.
> >
> >Then that is a problem.  And govt and other's concerns you described
> >were justified.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >
>
>
-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle

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")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070529/b89bd17d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070529/b89bd17d/attachment.txt>


More information about the Governance mailing list