[governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF

Mon Oct 29 03:41:43 EDT 2007

Couple of observations on points raised by Bill and Ralf.

Firstly, the document that the IGC adopted 2 years ago on the Forum
functions etc looks pretty good. No reason that we go back on any part if
it, especially the more important ones, of which the following line catches
the spirit best. 

" 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 (emphasis added)."

The logic of expedience and prudence  that these possibilities are unlikely
to be realized in the present context, even when a good amount of support
for them is available in the Tunis Agenda text - is problematic for me. We
need to stick to what we believe is the right thing. Civil society is often
the bearer of futuristic progressive ideas, long before they are accepted
and mainstreamed. In this case what we are asking for is something which is
already incorporated in the text of a global summit, and there are other,
strong, players who are asking for similar things  even if this meeting of
minds is partial and very issue-specific.

Giving in to the prudence logic and lowering the threshold of what CS seeks
from and of the IGF, especially when other promised post-WSIS processes,
like the enhanced cooperation, either look entirely doomed, or in any case
are likely to offer little space for CS, simply means we  close to - accede
to the status quo in IG structures. This is politically unacceptable for
many CS constituencies worldwide, and we must take note of this fact. IGF is
our strongest and the best chance, and for this purpose we need a strong IGF
 complete fulfillment of Tunis Agenda is the minimum we ask for. We
shouldnt weaken our positions, even if we have to carry them over to the
IGF re-assessment after the 5th year. Meanwhile, we can build our positions
and allies and use the opportunities we have  for instance, in the likely
review of MAG structure after Rio  to push for small gains here and there. 

Secondly, we must recognize that there is a strong element of conceptual
and practical jump from a situation of  all may speak, and all views are
equally valid, and there is no further process of validation and
legitimization of certain set of views, opinions etc  to moving to any
other level  even if it is short of clear recommendation giving  for
instance, making working groups and study groups (can they not come out with
some more or less clear outcomes), or even, as per Tunis Agenda, interfacing
with IG bodies (who decides the issues and agenda) or promote and assess
embodiment of WSIS principles in IG bodies ( how! other than providing
conference space for people to say different things).

The IGF at present takes the position of we exercise no power to a
ludicrous extent, and not being able to decide on a speakers list for the
main session is a resounding proof of the absolute ineffectiveness of the
present thinking about what is IGF, and its present structures, to do
anything more than what it is doing at present. IGF will have to make some
degree of a clean break from its present conceptual mooring, and accept its
representative character, on behalf of the world community, and in that
capacity to exercise power and make decisions. It must take this decision
for itself. If it doesnt, we do not move an inch forward from where we are.
However, once this decision is taken, where does the IGF stop, or the
delineation its ambit, becomes the key issue  and these limits are given in
the Tunis Agenda, and also stated in IGCs position of 2 years ago. 

Thirdly, the above issues of effectiveness of IGF, beyond being an annual
conference, are directly linked to its structures, and the MAG is the
primary structure here. We cannot speak about effectiveness or mandate of
IGF without speaking about the nature and structure of MAG or any other such
body. This core body has to become stronger and more effective. A mere
assemblage of thousands, by open invitation, that IGF is at present cannot
do much more than it is doing at present. It is this core body which has to
assume a good amount of responsibilities of ensuring the fulfilling of the
IGF mandate, with strong processes of transparency and accountability, with
multiple outward linkages. 

It is clear that an IGF (MAG) that cannot decide a list of harmless speakers
with the clear purpose of having an engaging and effective public policy
debate (the primary mandate of the IGF) is most unlikely to be able to
formulate any kind of recommendations. But then it looks as impossible that
it could do any other, what may be positioned as intermediate or lesser,
tasks  whether of effectively organizing and managing sub-bodies  working
groups, study groups, dynamic coalitions etc  or, say, identification of
weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture. (I am very interested
in hearing about clear implement-able ways this could be done by the IGF,
given its present structure and orientation, for none comes to my mind.)

So, what we are looking at here are more basic structural issues about what
is IGF, and what it was meant to be, and what it should and can be. 

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: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]

> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:56 AM

> To: Bendrath, Ralf; Governance

> Subject: Re: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF

> 

> Hi Ralf,

> 

> Thanks for the input on the agenda of the IGC workshop.

> 

> On 10/24/07 4:51 PM, "Ralf Bendrath" <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> 

> >> it¹s 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.

> 

> We could take up this, and other alternative ideas...

> 

> >> /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.

> 

> But they're free floating and don't have the sort of institutionalized

> relationship to the IGF that sub-bodies of other IG collaborations have in

> terms of recognition and ability to input, per the long-ago recs of the

> MMWG.  Should we address that?

> 

> >> 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.

> 

> Right.  But per the above, if you folks come up with some ideas, what then

> happens to them?

> 

> > What about support for "disadvantaged stakeholders"? I lost track on

> > travel fellowships etc. Are there any?

> 

> There's whatever Canada's doing, and someone at the ITU told me today that

> they are offering unspecified support to "18 people from almost 15

> developing countries, and 4 continents."  No reply yet as to whether any

> are

> nongovernmental.

> 

> >> 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.

> 

> Hence my reply to Adam.

> 

> Any other topical ideas?

> 

> Cheers,

> 

> BD

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/4be90ad3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/4be90ad3/attachment.txt>