[governance] VS: Next Steps

[Sivasubramanian M]

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Is there a possibility of a WSIS III online?
>

To elaborate, is there a possibility that the Civil Society together with
International Organizations and all concerned non-Governmental Groups and
MSH friendly govenments  can organize a large online event on the scale and
scope of a WSIS, in the context of the present developments? This may not
necessarily be called a WSIS, but an event that could give shape to any
alternate plan that requires to be considered.


>
> 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/a642ff70/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