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

[Ginger Paque]

Bertrand, thanks for proposing this alternate. I works for me. Please 
opine, everybody!

Best, gp

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