[governance] Proposal IGF mechanism through DC

Tue Feb 24 11:06:07 EST 2009

Hello

I have received a few requests to have the proposal I made this morning
to be posted in writting.

This is the written basis of my oral speech, a few words might have been 
skipped
during my talk and conversely.

Best

Francis

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Francis Muguet

IGF Open Consultations

24 February 2009

Geneva

IGF PROCEDURE PROPOSAL

I am the IGF focal point of the Linguistic Diversity Dynamic Coalition, 
and chair, co-chair, webmaster of various WSIS working groups that are 
still active to various extent.

I am speaking in my personal capacity.

I am going to be brutally honest in my assessment and then propose a 
pragmatic solution.

While being supported by the majority of its participants, the IGF 
process is nevertheless in a difficult position, because its usefulness 
is criticized from two parties. From one side, there are stakeholders, 
that are more in favor of an intergovernmental process because they feel 
that there is a lack of output, in particular in terms of 
recommendations. On the other side, there are stakeholders who perceive 
the IGF as annoyance that could be avoided, and would be glad to revert 
to the old ways before the WSIS. Both sides, could, from outside the IGF 
process, at the CSTD level, the ECOSOC level, impose an external review.

According to the Tunis Agenda :
/*76.*// //*We ask the UN Secretary-General*// to examine the 
desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in //_formal consultation 
with Forum participants_//, within five years of its creation, and to 
make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard//./

I agree with Markus Kummer that normally all review processes are 
performed by people that are not stakeholders directly involved in the 
activity under review. Even a 'internal review" means usually review by 
people in the same organization, with no outsiders, but not by the very 
people involved in the activity.
Whatever the type of review, it is unavoidable that the extent to which 
each point of the mandate is going to be precisely assessed. It is clear 
also the review report is going to be the basis of the recommendations 
of the UN Secretary General is going to send, along with the review 
report, to the UN general assembly who is going to have the final say.

Let us examine briefly the Tunis agenda and assess the progress that 
have been made.
Concerning IGF organization :
/
//78. The UN Secretary-General should extend invitations to all 
stakeholders and relevant parti//
   2.       //establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to 
support the IGF//,
/ *not fulfilled, *no bureau has been established,

Concerning the IGF mandate

/*7**2. We ask the UN Secretary-General*, in an open and inclusive 
process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new 
forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue---called the Internet 
Governance Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:/

   /5.    //  Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
developing world.//
      /*Not fulfilled*. There is no advisory document in the name of  
IGF, or from the IGF, on this topic

   /7.    //  //Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of 
the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
recommendations.//
       /*The point is not fulfilled* at all.

   /9.       //Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment 
of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes.//
       /*Not fulfilled. *There is no assessment document in the name of  
IGF on this topic  /
 /.
  /12. //Publish its proceedings//
        / OK, fulfilled partially, Are transcripts proceedings ?

It might be supplemented by a scientific proceeding ( it is suggested a 
special issue of /Future Internet/ 
<http://www.mdpi.com/journal/futureinternet> (ISSN 1999-5903), a new 
open access journal where contributions are formatted in terms of papers.).

 Personally I see that the un-fulfillment of articles 5, 7 and 9 of the 
mandate is linked to the lack of  establishment of a bureau.   Since 
there is no bureau,  no rules of procedures can be determined so that 
documents , statements, recommendations can be produced in the name of 
the IGF. It appeared to me, for a long time, as a stalemate without 
solution. .

 At the end of the Hyderabad meeting, I envisioned a way that could 
offer a pragmatic
compromise with the help of the Dynamic Coalitions, a completely 
unexpected concept
that arose during the IGF .and I am developing further this idea now

Considering key article 7 :
/Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant 
bodies and the general public,

/It could be considered that the creation of Dynamic Coalition on some 
issues pertains
to the task of identifying emerging issues. ( emerging : that emerge 
from the debate  to differentiate from   emergent issues, meaning  new, 
novel  topics  ) . _By facilitating the creation of Dynamic Coalitions 
recognized by the secretariat and listed on the IGF web site,  the IGF  
has fulfill its mandate to _/_Identify emerging issues._/The dynamic 
coalitions are effectively bringing the issues to /the attention of the 
relevant bodies and the general public/.  So this works.
/
 and, where appropriate, make recommendations./

following this line of reasoning,  it is the dynamic coalitions that are 
making recommendations.
The set of the DC recommendations is regrouped in one document entitled :
 _Recommendation __*at*__ the IGF._
 The *at * is put in bold instead of *of*  to make it clear that it is 
the recommendations
 made by the IGF entities that have been recognized by the IGF as 
dealing with emerging issues. The Recommendation *at* the IGF does not 
have to be in agreement with one another, depending  on each DC approach.

In addition The MAG could held sessions dedicated to the agreement of 
DCs, and those sessions  be called Bureau session, since in some sense, 
there are dealing with procedural issues that may lead to recommendation 
*at* the IGF.

/5.      Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
developing world./
may be fulfilled by asking DC to producing advisory documents for this 
topic.
 Similarly,   the set of advices of each DC could be regrouped in  a 
document
 called :
 _Advices __*at *__the IGF  concerning ways and means to accelerate the 
availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world._

and also
  /9.       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of 
WSIS principles in Internet governance processes./
may be fulfilled by asking DC to producing promotion and assessment 
documents for this topic.  Similarly,   the set of documents of each DC 
be regrouped in  one general document  called :
 _Assessement __*at *__the IGF  concerning the embodiment of WSIS 
principles in Internet governance processes.._

and in this way the IGF could be considered as having fulfilled its  
entire mandate.

The IGF process has not lived up to the expectations of many,  but also 
to the fears of many...
Its role is crucial, and the IGF must be continued.

Now considering the consultations process since the DC are playing a 
formal role in the IGF, the / //_formal consultation with Forum 
participants_/ could be conducted, possibly partially, through the 
dynamic coalitions.

In this way, we have a legal and political coherence both for the 
implementation of the mandate and the consultation.

------------------------------------------------------

-- 

------------------------------------------------------ 
Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D 

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net

ENSTA/KNIS  http://knis.org
32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE 
Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 
muguet at ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet 

PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair 
Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web
Info. Net. Govermance  :  http://www.wsis-gov.org  web

NET4D : http://www.net4D.org 
UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org 
WTIS : http://www.wtis.org   REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org
------------------------------------------------------ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090224/d0d094ae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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