[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