AW: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue"

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Avri asks the right question. What a Plan B could be? 
 
If we consider that the whole process is bottom up it would be rather natural that at the top of national and regional IGFs there would be a global/international IGF. If it brings extra value to the stakleholders they will decide independently from an IGO to continue. If the IGF has got an authority and legitimacy in its own, there is no need to get the blessing from ALL governments. 
 
The good question is when such a critical mass for continuation is achieved? So far we are still in the very early days of this experiment and I am afraind that there are folks our who want to kill the baby in the craddle. In the long run multistakeholderism undermines established (and comfortable) power positions. Be not surprised that some groups are not happy with this "unusual beast" called IGF.  
 
This is one reason for my proposal to have a workshop/best practice forum in Sharm el Sheikh where governments, private sector, civil socierty and technical community stakeholders report to each other what they have learned in the last four years from the interaction with the other stakeholders. I would be interested to hear what the Chinese government (or the Brazilian, US, German, Saudi Arabian government) has to tell, what they benefited (or not) from dialogue with private sector, cibvil society and technical community. And I would be also interested to hear what Google & Co. have benefited from the IGF dialgue wioth governments, and civil society/the users. 
 
BTW a UN General Assembly resolutions does not need consensus. It needs just simple majority of the member states, participating in the voting. Only in the security council China has a veto right, But the IGF is not an issue related to international security (could be later if cybersecurity is seen as an element of peace/war issues). With other words if there is a UN GA resolution from lets say 150 (in favour) : 10 (against) with 30 abstentions, it would be difficult for the Secretary General to say no.  
 
Wolfgang 

________________________________

Von: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
Gesendet: So 17.05.2009 11:30
An: Governance List
Betreff: Re: [governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue"




On 14 May 2009, at 17:26, Ian Peter wrote:

> So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can 
> write off
> the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more
> interesting twists and turns.


I can't think of anything that is ever a foregone conclusion.

And while I believe that when all is said and done, the UN GA will 
endorse continuation, it may not.

So, in that unlikely  event, is there a plan B?

I don't have a pan B, but I do have some questions about one.

The IGF has moved from being solely an international event, to being a 
national and regional process.  Do these national and regional 
processes rely on the UN in any way?  Would they wither away?

Or might this national and regional process have to ability to 
reconstitute the IGF should the UN governments decide against 
continuing it?  And would these national and regional initiatives be 
enough to legitimize the activity?


a.

____________________________________________________________
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