[governance] VS: Next Steps
Desiree Miloshevic
dmiloshevic at afilias.info
Sat Dec 18 14:56:46 EST 2010
Agree with Avri.
Desiree
--
On 18 Dec 2010, at 19:54, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I pretty much can agree with this, though I think
>
> - it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community
> - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any
> willing participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest
> treated equally). I.e lets lead by example. I
>
> a.
>
>
> On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree we should not wait.
>>
>> When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I
>> was only half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote
>> instant global working group isn't that complicated.
>>
>> My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with
>> interested governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored
>> guests. But of course we would treat them equally.
>>
>> If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and
>> Jeremy etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the
>> best of all possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up
>> once this is semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past,
>> and throws a pot of $ or euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual
>> thing, so that maybe there could be a f2f meeting pre-final report.
>>
>> This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the
>> UN WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing
>> proceeds. But let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful,
>> right?
>>
>> While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it
>> seems to be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced
>> cooperation,' and my bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining
>> our own mandate, at this stage let's not to to try to unravel the
>> 2 - that would be a task for the Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II
>> to plan B.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
>> ] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
>> Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps
>>
>> 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>>
>> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced
>> but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not
>> the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is
>> better than the Dec. 6 decision.
>>
>> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics
>> within this new WG and their working methodology. If the
>> discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation
>> between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor
>> role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the
>> right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move
>> backwards or to create something which is unworkable and
>> counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This
>> has to be tested out.
>>
>> Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of
>> this new WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the
>> working group is unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting
>> yesterday made us all uncomfortable - it did not look like it was
>> progressing towards preserving and enhancing the MS model. And
>> there is a new structure of primary and secondary members. (Primary
>> and Secondary to participate in superficial discussions, whereas
>> for really important decisions the Primary members meet closed
>> doors shutting out the Secondary Members?)
>>
>> Izumi wrote
>>
>> In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the
>> WG,but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as
>> "second class citizen" which has been used many times during the
>> negotiation. The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not
>> really insist on the pure equal footing of non-governmental actors
>> in the WG.
>>
>> If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate
>> that in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group
>> with the inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH
>> friendly Governments, to start with.
>>
>> I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe.
>>
>> Sivasubramanian M
>>
>> Sivasubramanian M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>
>> Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary.
>> But since the observers are not part of the consensus making group,
>> there still seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B,
>> though maybe it is Plan C. It is al well and good that the
>> governments keep going back to their rules for excluding
>> stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the stakeholder
>> need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their processes?
>> And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have
>> decided to not listen to any of the observers comments?
>>
>> Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have
>> worked to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO
>> sovriegnty, so to the Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need
>> to make their own efforts to make sure they are heard and listened
>> to. We do not want to see so called 'improvements' that improve
>> things only for one group of stakeholders.
>>
>> I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the
>> observers may be worth thinking through.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi everybody
>>>
>>> back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent
>>> where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to
>>> thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled
>>> people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened.
>>> Great work.
>>>
>>> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced
>>> but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not
>>> the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is
>>> better than the Dec. 6 decision.
>>>
>>> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics
>>> within this new WG and their working methodology. If the
>>> discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation
>>> between primary and secondary members of the group may play a
>>> minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments
>>> at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to
>>> move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and
>>> counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This
>>> has to be tested out.
>>>
>>> From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN
>>> members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document.
>>> We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the
>>> result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was
>>> officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that
>>> we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and
>>> "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the
>>> intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was
>>> reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG.
>>>
>>> Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the
>>> governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this
>>> negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed
>>> doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent
>>> onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly
>>> governments. It was the substance and the strength of the
>>> arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG
>>> definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating
>>> politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale.
>>>
>>> With other words, a strong performance within the group can
>>> equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what
>>> the working method of the new group will be.
>>>
>>> In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the
>>> Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was
>>> to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an
>>> alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which
>>> would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility.
>>> However this is a delicate issue for a government.
>>>
>>> In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will
>>> remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to
>>> ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group
>>> and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were
>>> discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in
>>> Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in
>>> ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new
>>> political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative
>>> IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be
>>> even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May
>>> 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official
>>> report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This
>>> would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC.
>>>
>>> But I think that for the moment working inside is the better
>>> option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the
>>> next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final
>>> composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and
>>> practical - is ahead of us.
>>>
>>> Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101218/96254588/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list