[governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF

[Ralf Bendrath]

William Drake schrieb:
> http://www.net-gov.org/files/co55.pdf, 
Thanks for reminding us of these old, but very good IGC documents. :-)

> /38. The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments
> like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances
> when the parties all agree that such instruments are needed, there could
> be a mechanism that allows for their establishment. Normally, the forum
> should focus on the development of soft law instruments such as
> recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc.
> /
> [NB: In retrospect, this seems a bit problematic in several respects.
> In any event, it implies an entirely different beast from what we have,
> and a level of commitment to more than talk that just isn’t there. 
That is not there for many (maybe the majority of) participants, to be
precise.

> it’s hard to see how
> it could devise even recommendations, 
Wolfgang had the neat idea of multiple "messages" that could come out of
the coalitions' work or the IGF workshops and would not have to be
"adopted" by the final plenary.

> /39. The forum could provide, for example, the following functions:
> 
> a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for
> peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a
> Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.
> /
> [NB: Clearly a major difference here from annual meetings only.  Now
> even the term, working group, is verboten.]
But we have the dynamic coalitions.

> d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture,
> i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly
> within the ambit of any existing body;
We're trying to address this for the privacy field (which is "orphaned" on
the global level) at WS25(SEC) in Rio.

> j. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other
> documents on the various Internet governance issues.
See above.

> 40. Participation in the discussions and working groups of the forum
> should be free and open to all interested individuals from all
> stakeholder groups. Operations should be designed in such a way that
> physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged
> stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organizations,
> individuals) are proactively supported.
> /
> [NB: One could argue that some elements of the above are advanced a bit
> in the current configuration; is more needed?]
We certainly have "free and open participation" once people can make it to
the IGF meetings.
I would say that "physical attendance" is still needed if people want to
make a difference. Although the coalitions have been doing most of their
work between the meetings online.
What about support for "disadvantaged stakeholders"? I lost track on
travel fellowships etc. Are there any?

> /41. It is important that the forum has clear organization and
> decision-making procedures, and responsibilities for its functioning and
> effectiveness are clearly defined and attributed. It is also important
> that the structure that will be given to the forum is able to produce
> practical results. A forum for discussion will not be particularly
> useful if it will not be coupled with the ability to bring all
> stakeholders to agreement and determine actual
> changes.
> /
> [NB: Oh well...]
Yeah, good to remind us of our ambitious goals back then, as humans tend
to get used to anything.

> The workshop will of course focus not on the above, but on the agreed
> mandate.
It still could make sense to refer to positions pre-Tunis, in order to
show where the TA content came from and to show as CS that TA is only a
lowest common denominator, while we asked for more and still want it.
Bottom line message then would be: "Folks, we need to at least fully
fullfill the TA mandate!"

Best, Ralf
____________________________________________________________
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