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

[Ian Peter]

Thanks Bertrand. I think we should run with this new proposed text as it
seems to have general support.




On 16/07/09 11:12 PM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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