[governance] Outcome, Messages etc.

[Vanda UOL]

May be now there will be "environment" for write messages as an outcome to
keep general interest in IGF I believe messages to be treated by regional
meetings and there get some recommendations, may the a good path to
follow...
Best to all

 Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend
 Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253
Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464



-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:11 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC
Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc.

Parminder: 

 I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG policy
making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call themselves
adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of the IGF  (the
latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that IGF gives out
'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does).


Wolfgang:
 
It was me who proposed in the first MAG meeting after Athens (February 2007)
to "invented" a new category of "outcome" which has not the political
bagagae of a "recommendation" in the UN context. A"recommendation" is a
negotiated text and you need a "drafting group" wehre all parties are
represented in a balanced way. If you would start within a four day meeting
with "negotiations" you unavoidably destroy any type of discussion. Parties
will start to fight there there "fixed position" is reflected in the final
document and the struggle goes around language which is so general that all
parties feel that they have won. The formula "enhanced cooperation" is a
very god example. With other words: You have an "outcome" but it is
meaningless. 
 
To avoid this and to move forward to the discussion of substance you have to
avoid such a type of negotiations where "word smithing" is more important
than the issue. I understand that people want to take something home after a
meeting. And they are not satisfied if they have only the Chairman´s summary
and the thousands of pages of the transcripts (which are nevertheless
importanten) Against this background I proposed in the MAG
1. to produce readable proceedings in form of an "IGF book" what you can
take home (free of charge), distribute to friends and put on your bookshelf
(and read again if needed) and
2. to introduce as a new (undefined) category the formulaiton of "messages"
as a light weight outcome from a discussion and as a visible "output" from
the meeting.
 
My idea with the message was (and is) that each convenor/raporteur of a
plenary or workshop formlates at the end of the session one or two (or three
as a maximm) key conclusions and summarizes this in form of short messages.
This is normally the case in each meeting but so far there is no mechanism
in place to channel this type of conclusions to a audience beyond the peole
sitting in the rom. These conclusions can be controversial messages (one
party said so and another party said so) but it has to be concrete, precise,
cover a key aspect and has to be also short (not longer than three
lines/similar to the length restrictions you know from twitter). But the
most important point is it would a non-negotiated text. No drafting group
needed. If you have 80 workshops and plenaries you will get around 160
messages from 80 perople which avoids that one party overtake or capture the
formulation of the messages. Certainly this will enhance the responsiblity
of the raporteur (and the procedure to nominate a rapporteur).  
 
I remember very well the discussion in the MAG in February and May 2007. The
Brazilians wanted to have something like a "Rio de Janeiro IGF Declaration".
Bilcaho, the Brazilian governmental representative, was excited in the
beginning to have "IGF Messages from Rio de Janeiro". But for a number of
reasons, it did not work for Rio (and not for the following IGFs).
 
When we launched EURODIG, it was easier to convince the core team to think
about "messages" as an alternative to "recommendations". And it workd in
Strasbourg in 2008, where "Messages from Strasbourg" where produced "bottom
up" and the core team just made some final polishment but did not change the
substance of the messages which came from the rapporteurs of the various
sessions. The same happend with the "EURODIG Geneva Messages from 2009" and
now with the "2010 EURODIG Madrid Messages". The same thing happend with the
German IGF where we produced a one page "IGF-D Messages from Berlin" out of
four sessions. 
 
Why I go back to the history? The lesson here is that nothing will happen
when you introduce it for the first time. If something is new, it takes time
that others are convinced. And as Avri has pointed out, it is an
evolutionary process which evolves bottom up. I am convinced that the idea
of "messages" - if they continue to proof to be a useful outcome from
regional and national IGFs - will be also attractive - sooner or later - for
the global IGF. 
 
Best wishes
 
wolfgang     
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t