[governance] VS: Next Steps

[Izumi AIZU]

I think building our own strategy is very important - so that we have better
coordination with other stakeholders.

And, inter-relation with EC process is of course very important.
I think at the moment no one knows how exactly these two tracks will proceed.
It is still an open question and depends on how all stakeholders will engage.

I don't think EC will define or void the value of CSTD/IGF process, rather
it is a two-way game. Both affect each other and both are important.

The Chair did not mention how to select the WG members, but my understanding
is that they will consider the inputs given, including the 10 nominees from IGC,
but at least the box is still black. I heard that Tech/academic
community is asked
to nominate their candidates separately now. Well, that's what 5+5+5 means.

To me, some sort of "Plan C" is essential. That means, now that non-governmental
stakeholders are regarded as "guest members" inside CSTD WG, these
stakeholders should make their own "group" inside AND outside the WG.
It will be, in the beginning at least, a coordination, not a coalition per se.
And IGC should play an important role for this coordination, and also reaching
out governments, both MSH friendly and not so, together.

I mean at least at CSTD the level of understanding of IGF process and MSH
is not so high nor deep, especially among these Geneva based mission,
foreign affairs ministry people, and I wonder how much they received
instructions
from the capital, or gov agencies in charge of IGF.

There are also some gov folks who are trying to be MSH friendly, but as Wolfgang
wrote, they could not include non-gov members into the decision making
process at UN, which is essentially an inter-governmental body, thus
legally, they argued
they cannot give equal status to non-gov actors.  They are not necesarily
anti-MSH, or anti-CS, but in their legal (and political) framework, they just
cannot find ways to accept us as peer.

For that, I think we should strengthen our argument, and how exactly MSH
address this issue. Not an easy task, I think, but worth a try.

I mean, is it  a) because of the nature of the Internet (distributed
governance, built by non-gov actors with little regulation etc.) that
we argue for the MSH, or

b) because of new global situation, not only addressed to Internet and
Information
Society areas, but something together with say environmental issues,
or other trans-national issues, that requires the participation of
non-gov actors to the global
policy coordination as the state power in general are being reduced, or

c) combination of both elements?

I mainly argued with a) at the CSTD meeting, but b) is also important
in larger context.

izumi


2010/12/20 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> 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
>> >
>> > ____________
____________________________________________________________
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