[governance] Outcome, Messages etc.

Mon Aug 23 07:29:36 EDT 2010

A few points :

1) a distinction should be made between a) the IGF as the annual "watering
hole" where progress is evaluated and orientations are being given, and b)
the numerous processes that take place during the year in several spaces
(connected or not) on the corresponding issues. One objective of the IGF in
my view is to "synchronize" such discussions, ie : to make sure that they
take into account the same elements and the same formulation of the issues.
The IGF as a whole is not and should not be the place for the negotiations
themselves for the reasons Wolfgang mentions.

2) Ideally, the IGF can help (re-)formulate issues in a way that makes them
more a common objective, as I believe it is a prerequisite for constructive
engagement. Examples include changing "Ending the unilateral control of the
critical internet resources by the US government" into "Ensuring the
integrity of the root zone file". The former is a contentious subject, the
later is a common objective that allows to discuss whether the current
modalities are sufficient, acceptable, can be improved, etc....

3) Thematic networks (instead of dynamic coalitions) could be set up to
connect the different structures dealing with a given issue, to coordinate
their work intersessionally. The outcome of their work could be
"recommendations presented AT the IGF". IGF meetings could even be used by
whatever drafting group they establish to finalize wording (as opposed to a
general IGF drafting exercise) or to present the current status of work to
get feedback.

4) A major issue that Wolfgang is alluding to is formalizing a little better
the outcome of the workshops :it could be a few "common formulations" on
sensitive topics and "main messages", to reflect the different dimensions of
the issue or even divergent opinions. Such workshop reports/inputs should be
done on site in order - when possible - to feed into the relevant main
sessions. The web site should be improved to facilitate access to these
reports (for the moment it is too much focused on the preparatory work
rather than being a source of useful resources for participants and
non-particiants).

5) An new format (wrap-up, roundtables ?), intermediary between workshops
and main sessions, could be introduced in the future to help channel the
outcomes of related workshops into the main sessions. It would gather the
organizers of the workshops and the moderators of the main sessions to help
structure the subsequent discussions in the main sessions.

6) A more structured circulation of information should be put in place as
the network of national and regional IGFs develop. In particular, it could
produce useful INPUTS into the global IGF from the national and regional
ones. Likewise, the IGF could produce elements that national and regional
IGFs would use to structure their own discussions.

7) As for Karl's useful suggestion to deal a bit more with substance,
reformulation of some of the most sensitive topics (before trying to rush to
find "solutions") could be a very beneficial first step and the IGC could
positively contribute :

   - "net neutrality" is a good case in point : there is a high level of
   confusion on what it entails and different actors keep talking to one
   another with completely different understandings of the term itself. I have
   suggested elsewhere (following interesting discussions at the last EuroDIG),
   to reframe it as "Limitations to Network Management" (other formulations can
   be envisaged). An important ooutcome of the IGF in vilnius could be the
   formation of a thematic network gathering the various processes under way in
   parallel at national or regional levels or within IGOs or specific
   groupings.
   - likewise, themes like : "applicable jurisdiction for globally-hosted
   content", "liability of intermediaries", "procedures for notice and
   take-down" and "general principles for social media terms of service" could
   lead to similar thematic network formation and the development of
   "globally-applicable public policy principles"

These elements will form an integral part of the discussions on IGF
"improvements" and the IGC has an important role to play in this respect.

I hope the suggestions above can help a fruitful debate.

Best

Bertrand

2010/8/21 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> 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
>

-- 
____________________
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/20100823/70e95151/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

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