[governance] Outcome, Messages etc.

[parminder]

Dear Bertrand

As always I read your erudite and intelligent arguments with much interest.

It is not that I have no hopes from the IGF. I have hopes, and this is 
why I continue to closely associate with it.

And it is not that the IGF system (pulling in together also the 
regional/ national IGFs) is not, or will not be, contributing anything. 
However, what I fear is that it is setting up a new global governance 
paradigm which at its heart is very *conservative*. It will certainly be 
able to produce some results like in area of network security that 
affect all of us, almost equally.  It may be able to produce rules that 
provide the basic structure for society's stability, which is the 
conservative political agenda.

However, I see the same emerging global governance model subverting any 
or all possibilities of 'progressive change' - towards greater equality 
and social justice in this world. Denial of any such possibility is 
written in the DNA of the emergent governance model (unlike the DNA of a 
democratic model which is, at its root, egalitarianism oriented).

What we want is a global governance model which is more social justice 
oriented. And I do not see the IGF system evolving towards any such 
possibility, at least at present. ( I will like to hear arguments to the 
contrary.) Unless, of course, as I have argued earlier, the 
multi-stakeholder model of IGF is subordinate to, and feeds into, a more 
clearly (deep) democratic governance model at the global level.

Unless I hear a IGF/ multistakeholderism proponent also discuss parallel 
developments towards global democracy, I remain skeptical of the pitch.

Picking up two examples from your text.

     >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....


I am unable to agree to this. One can discuss or perhaps even ensure the 
integrity (whatever it means) of the root without its democratic 
governance which is the point of the other formulation '"Ending the 
unilateral control of the critical internet resources by the US 
government". As one can have economic progress under a despotic rule, 
but that is *not* ok.

In the same way

     >"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

I will rather frame NN issue as a media rights, and economic, social and 
cultural rights, issue (in the same way as I cringe from presenting FoE 
as a trade restriction issue, a la Google and US gov). And I am quite 
sure, both, that

(1) it is quite difficult to make much progress at the IGF, as it is at 
present, in trying to project NN as a social and economic rights issues, 
and at the same time,

(2) whether NN is posited as a network management issue or a rights 
issues, things will move in quite different directions.

I have used the above examples to illustrate how the needs of global 
social justice are difficult to be met in a highly  *conservative* 
governance model which seem to be emerging around, and through, the IGF. 
We thus need to build new, more democratic structures, at the global 
level, and the the IGF should be an important part of it.

Thanks and best regards

Parminder


On Monday 23 August 2010 04:59 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto: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/20100823/4f5f8157/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