[governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

[Parminder]

 >It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus 
acceptance here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as 
it will be opposed by so
 > many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that altogether.

"Decision making IGF' ???. Whoever asked for it? In fact I have been on 
this list for a few years and I have never heard one person in any 
seriousness asking for a decision making IGF. Jeremy's views are 
relatively most developed in this area, an he doesn't ask for a decision 
making IGF. An IGP paper did flirt with the possibility of IGF in some 
way taking up soft oversight of the ICANN to help it to transit away 
from US control, but a lot of detail was offered that it does *not* 
involve any hard decision making.

And since the above is said in relation to present proposals for an IGC 
statement, I wonder why a simple statement seeking 'strengthening of the 
IGF' which I am sure has been reflected in earlier IGC statements should 
deteriorate unilaterally, over two emails,  into being interpreted as a 
call for a 'decision making IGF' which should now be dropped since it is 
unlikely to get the group's consensus.

Extreme and facile labeling of positions does not help the discussions. 
I can very well say calling IGF as a 'Davos of the Internet' serves the 
purpose of legitimizing control of global Internet policies related 
decision making by big industry.

To tell the truth, I wonder how an arm of global civil society can be so 
insensitive to the fact that a very large part of progressive global 
civil society sees Davos as symbolising (and legitimising)  powerful 
economic players take up the leadership of the world, in absence of the 
needed political vacuum. We are here looking for legitimate global 
public policy processes, not imposition on new neo-liberal models on 
Internet governance. The situation is bad enough without our help.

Parminder


Ian Peter wrote:
> It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
> here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
> opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
> altogether.
>
> I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.
>
> However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
> of possibilities here we should explore.
>
> Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
> "enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
> IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
> area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
> the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
> recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
> existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully .... 
>
> I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in February
> is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
> operate
>
> Ian Peter
> PO Box 429
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
>  
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>> Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>>
>> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>>
>> My comments are inside
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
>> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
>> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
>> not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
>> suitably strengthened.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
>> by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should
>> be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
>> absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
>> IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
>> at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the
>> WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
>> political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
>> inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
>> eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
>> declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
>> gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
>> but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
>> place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
>> to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
>> realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
>> governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
>> within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the
>> political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
>> something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
>> Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
>> "pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
>> century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
>> strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
>> receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
>> free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
>> participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized
>> as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
>> members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
>> very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
>> be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
>> DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
>> technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (2) We should also assert that there are two clear, and relatively
>> distinct, mandates of the IGF -  first, regarding public policy functions,
>> as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding
>> capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role needs to be
>> strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building)
>> should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related
>> role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its
>> one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered
>> to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general
>> follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
>> in particular if it comes to capacity building.
>>
>> Parminder:
>> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
>> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
>> interest.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
>> the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
>> govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
>> decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
>> crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
>> of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which
>> jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
>> DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to
>> get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
>> agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>     
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090118/b59bee11/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