[governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

[Fouad Bajwa]

I think the point about decision and action has been taken in the
literal sense and has been associated to a policy part. What I am
sharing is that one example from one developing country serves as an
example for another developing world country. I am not an advocate on
developed countries and my focus has always been with the developing
world.

Davos is one thing............. my perspective is clear, our struggle
for awareness of IG and inclusion of it in the local policy scene can
serve as an example for others and should be taken in to stock as an
example for other countries struggling for the same.

When I say UNGAID, I say a multistakholder partnership that gives more
power to the money pockets instead of the ones that disrupt the power
process for the people. When decision making goes only in to private
sector hands, the multistakeholder partnership diminishes and private
control takes over and you will soon continue to see that despite
whatever at large activities and CS inclusion the ICANN has been
making, some how things get twisted and no decision has evidence to be
supported with and so is never taken thus action never occurs.

I hope the CS members have a clear idea of what they want from the IGF
process because it will continue to be a diplomatic give and take
scenario whether there is maximum CS participation and representation
or not. I believe my role to be strong because I have support now,
thats the key effect to get any decision oriented action into place.

Technology and the Internet itself came from the US and thats the
issue that gets things tangled that over the past 4.5 decades,
Internet is also being powered from the developing world. The examples
of powering the Internet are there and Google will soon be launching
low-cost Internet accross the world. If the adoption goes well, Google
might become a leading global provider of Internet service to the
developing world gaining both a customer base in numerous markets of
mass and scale. Then if it would want to filter the Internet on any
specific country (in this case the dominating one) it will and the IGF
will not be in a position do anything because the control was
dynamically shifted to the private sector through market processes and
not the IGF itself.

One has to realize, whose turf are we defending. I am doing so for my
country and the Civil Society where my humane ability to take everyone
with me irrespective of any association or classification enables me
to take corresponding lobbying and direct activities towards decision
making activity.

Its always a matter of realizing that why do you want IGF, do you just
want to sit in meetings or discuss or would one like to participate in
action that brings about change. If the developed world doesn't want
to support that change, they don't have to, slowly and gradually the
developing world will evolve its powering the internet capacity and
capability and I see the IGF to be a strong discussion forum on that
where developing countries will create their multistakeholder
partnerships to seek solutions to their problems.

ICANN is there, there needs to be more input and intervention by IGF
into the ICANN where developing world countries will work together to
represent their interests and seek joint resolutions to gain what they
want from the governance ecology.

I am clear on when I say that action has to be there as it has been 6
years since this process evolved into where it is today, I don't see
why many more years are required to start that particular activity.
The IGF needs a solution to why it was established and why should it
be solidified. Why not all of us just participating in the ICANN?
Because the IGF brings in a multistakeholder dialogue doesn't mean its
role will never transform from just mere discussions to taking global
decisions in the form of resolutions where member states will strive
to achieve those collective decisions through local actions.

See how the Geneva Convention continues to be violated? The same will
be for any convention or decision making under the IGF but it will be
documented and progress against it will be monitored by the
signatories.

Change is evident, you will also see it in the next 12 months
irrespective of Davos or not!

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 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.
>
> "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
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
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