[governance] VS: Next Steps

[Marilia Maciel]

We need to map in our strategy the several boards we actually playing this
game, what is at stake, what are the actors and who can be our allies in
each one.

I agree with Lee that we should not disregard the process of enhanced
cooperation when we plan our strategy for CTSD. Depending on how EC gains
shape, the IGF may become an empty forum, with reduced political meaning and
impact. The States that were MSH friendly now had this position for a
reason. Maybe they believe that by giving us a "bone" we will remain
occupied in CSTD and forget other fora... Or maybe they are actually giving
us something in CSTD to show their willingness to be allies at DESA-EC
discussions. If so, what are their interests regarding EC? Is partnership in
our best interest? That should all be considered.

@Izumi and others that were Geneva, did the chair mention how and when the 5
people from each stakeholder group will be chosen for CSTD WG?

Marilia

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.net>wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101220/3b48aecd/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