[governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Thank you, Bertrand, for this helpful contribution. It takes care of my 
concerns and I support it.

Hope you get better soon, try a hot water bottle!
jeanette

Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I've only been following the discussions on the satement only in the 
> last hour or so - being stuck in my bed with an awful back ache due in 
> part to the long economy-class flight coming back from the ICANN meeting 
> in Sydney (would support business class tickets indeed ..). Want to 
> congratulate Ginger for an amazing job and her patience.
> 
> Just a few comments if I can help on the issue of "recommendations", 
> with a proposed formulation in the end.
> 
> 1) The title of the thread (should the IGF _negotiate_ recommendations 
> ?) goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make" recommendations). I do 
> not think anybody in the IGC wants to go backwards on the Tunis document 
> : the capacity of IGF to produce recommendations is in the text and it 
> is important. What the reluctant people mean is that "negotiations" as a 
> way to produce recommendations is the wrong way to go. The experience of 
> those of us who participated this year in meetings like CSTD and ITU 
> WTPF shows the danger of reverting to traditional ways of 
> intergovernmental negotiations.
> 
> 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction 
> was made between "recommendations _by_ the IGF" and "recommendations 
> _at_ the IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, including Dynamic 
> Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc gatherings after a workshop, 
> could take the opportunity of an IGF meeting to prepare recommendations 
> that they would make public at the IGF and invite other actors to join. 
> This is a truly multi-stakeholder and bottom-up approach.
> 
> 3) In such an approach, some process could be envisaged for the IGF to 
> record such recommendations in a specific rubric, like the IGF site 
> already incorporates the reports of the workshops. In the simplest form, 
> the reports themselves can already contain such recommendations.
> 
> Because of the above, I do not think the opposition in the IGC is 
> between those who want recommendations (as a condition of IGF's 
> credibility) and those who oppose recommendations in general. The debate 
> is more around how to produce something useful  without getting in 
> traditional negotiation mode. The answer in my view is that the IGF's 
> main mission is to build consensus on 1) the correct understanding of an 
> issue and its various dimensions, 2) the existence (or not) of a 
> commonly agreed goal, and 3) the best procedural method to address the 
> issue (this can mean for instance, a recommendation for a specific group 
> to be formed, or for an issue to be addressed by a given organization - 
> or a group of them).
> 
> The term recommendation evokes for too many, the lengthy "resolutions" 
> adopted in traditional fora. On the other hand, the IGF, in its 
> innovative manner, could come up with much more specific guidance, for 
> instance if a critical mass of the relevant actors dealing with an issue 
> get together at an IGF meeting and, in the course of a workshop, agree 
> on a specific action (cf. the notion of roundtables when an issue is 
> considered "ripe" or "mature"). Recommendations can be on an 
> issue-by-issue basis and do not necessarily engage all of the IGF.
> 
> In that context, I'd like to contribute a possible formulation, trying 
> to combine the two proposals under discussion :
> 
> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where 
> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, 
> but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The 
> IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of 
> workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented 
> in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants 
> should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result 
> of their interaction in the IGF or in the Dynamic Coalitions and to 
> present their concrete recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted 
> on the IGF web site. 
> 
> This is just a starting proposal. Feel free to edit as needed.
> I hope this helps.
> Best
> Bertrand
> 
> 
> -- 
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the 
> Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of 
> Foreign and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> 
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de 
> Saint Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> 
____________________________________________________________
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