[governance] VS: Next Steps
Shahzad Ahmad
shahzad at bytesforall.net
Sun Dec 19 09:51:59 EST 2010
Fully agreed.
...and who knows things may change for good in the near future and all the
work can directly feed into the main ongoing process :)
Best wishes
Shahzad
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 12:54 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps
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.kleinwaechte
r 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.cp
sr.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.cp
sr.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=
____________________________________________________________
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