[governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

[Carlos Afonso]

... and now Belém, PA, Brazil. Take a look at:

http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=17&cd_language=2

frt rgds

--c.a.

jlfullsack wrote:
> Why a reference to "Davos" and not to "porto Alegre" ?
> Aren't we CS and not business gurus ?
> 
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>; "'Parminder'"
> <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:00 PM
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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