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

[Parminder]

Dear Bertrand,

Thanks a lot for the detailed email and a constructive suggestion.

First of all, the title of the thread may be misleading - as i said it 
is mostly about the language used. The proposed statement speaks of 
'non-binding statements' and at no place refers to recommendations. So 
it only goes far as what would be covered by your formulation, and the 
kind of processes that Jeannette suggested earlier, without binding 
ourselves down too much to some limited possibilities that can expand in 
the future.

The operative sentence from your formulation

"The IGC believes that it is important ... 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."

is quite fine with me.

parminder


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")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090716/1697e067/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