[governance] VS: Next Steps

[Sivasubramanian M]

Is there a possibility of a WSIS III online?

Sivasubramanian M



On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20101220/eacc2f5d/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