[governance] IGC at the Consultation on Enhanced cooperation, New York, Tuesday Dec 14 2010 - part 1

Mon Dec 27 05:58:39 EST 2010

Now for something a bit delayed – the pieces finally in place.

Beginning here, two emails will report on IGC at the Consultation on  
Enhanced cooperation, New York, Tuesday Dec 14 2010. This first email  
summarizes my observations, then provides links to a transcript, audio  
and video snippets, and the handout; as well as time code markers for  
some media links and relevant notes. The second email will address  
apparent implications from the day’s discussion for sustaining the  
multi-stakeholder model.

Source material to support this first email is in a mini-site, http://igc.concord-net-now.org 
  (which uses a secondary on one of my utility domains - any material  
that will be kept longer-term passes to Jeremy and onto the IGC site).

Summary

My ears – with of course my personal filters – heard, as follows:

The exchanges, across the day Dec 14, came across like nothing so much  
as a re-run of the five or so years of WSIS, with then also ladled on  
the ensuing more recent five-year history.

As we all know too well … but to be clear about antecedents:  the  
struggle that overtook WSIS targeted the expansion of any Internet  
oversight functions, from a single country, to shared responsibility  
worldwide. Then, the stalemate that concluded WSIS produced IGF and,  
nominally, Enhanced cooperation.

But the changes that were sought, for expansion of oversight, largely  
have not come to pass. If that point is only implicit in the day’s  
proceedings. IGF by design was not spec’ed to make changes, and the  
status quo is only slightly evolved by the last five years of ICANN  
history. Enhanced cooperation has until now been dormant and so of  
course is also without effect.

Across particularly the first phase of WSIS, a core group of countries  
were often the ‘voices’ for expansion, for example, India, China,  
Brazil, South Africa. So, at the end of the decade, at the Dec 14 2010  
Enhanced cooperation consultation, five years after WSIS, all-in about  
ten years later? The voices we heard leading were … Brazil, India,  
South Africa, China supporting.  For example. And of course several  
other countries, also voices familiar from WSIS.

To get some sense for how the other fellow sees it seems vital  
naturally, particularly with deep differences in views. The above is  
the sense I took away. In summary, a group of actors sees that there  
have not been changes and now is the time, finally.

Of course the additional, and pivotal, product of WSIS was the  
emergence of the multi-stakeholder model. That, properly, is where we  
focus concern. The day’s events reflected on this – which comes along  
in a separate email, as said.

Also. There seemed one fairly firm conclusion from the day. At least  
if you follow how Under-Secretary-General Sha put it:  A process of  
Enhanced cooperation is now ‘irreversible.’ A process that will be  
separate from, if perhaps complementary to, IGF. His conclusion cited  
the recent history of ECOSOC resolutions; the statement itself you can  
find at 1:57:45 in the afternoon UN video.

Various voices, states and others, were strongly, if diplomatically,  
in opposition. But the die seemed cast, if into a heated furnace ...

Transcript, audio and video snippets, time code markers in media  
links, relevant notes

In general, as I said to Milton at the day’s conclusion, IGC’s part  
seemed to be ‘a hit.’ There was more than one appreciative response to  
the scheduled IGC ‘presentation’ in the morning. (Transcript of my  
comments is linked below.) Including appreciation for our  ‘Wikileaks  
and Enhanced Cooperation’ handout. Fortunately both Milton and I were  
there. Milton has given good detail on his comments in the afternoon.  
Particularly, Milton conveyed important substance from the lunch  
discussion with the Brazilian delegates. (Links are below to video  
snips of both Milton’s and my afternoon interventions, also the  
intervening response from Under-Secretary-General Sha.)

Morning
A transcript of my scheduled comments for IGC is at

http://igc.concord-net-now.org/morning/morning.html

There is at the end also a pdf of the transcript, as well as a snip of  
the audio. (At 2:23:04 in the UN morning audio. The morning session  
was audio only, while video came back up for the afternoon.)

Afternoon
There are three video snippets from the afternoon.

My afternoon intervention is at

http://igc.concord-net-now.org/allen/Allen.html

(At 1:35:48 in the UN video. Less than five minutes - plus, see below.)

Milton's is at

http://igc.concord-net-now.org/mueller/Mueller.html

(At 1:27:20 in the UN video. Less than four minutes.)

Milton's came before mine chronologically (as the time code shows). I  
have left U-S-G Sha's comments at the end of my afternoon segment -  
there he offers appreciation for Milton's, as you may by now have seen  
and heard. Because one of U-S-G Sha's longer comments - made between  
Milton's and mine - are apropos the day's discussion, those are the  
third video up.

http://igc.concord-net-now.org/sha/Sha.html

(At 1:31:31 in the UN video. Four plus minutes.)

(Navigation in the little mini-site is a bit funky - the screen  
capture tool used to grab the video presented a puzzle, which led to a  
workaround (don't ask, you don't want to know). But for a simple  
little site, it will do.)

The two UN pages that hold the recordings for the day, to recapitulate:

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-consultations-on-enhanced-cooperation-of-international-public-policy-issues-pertaining-to-the-internet-am.html
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html

Notes

Item
As we see, there is a contrast between the core dialog of the day, as  
MIlton saw it, compared with my take. That, in part anyway, likely is  
in the filters each of us brings to it. I will not imagine a ‘correct’  
view.

Rather, the difference in implication is interesting. My understanding  
is of a continued push forward on an original agenda, from WSIS. With  
still (very much) a place for multi-stakeholders. Rather than a debate  
about future forms of governance.

The reality is likely more complicated than either of our summaries,  
and future choices by the various actors will reveal more accurately.

Item
To note as well. Bill Graham at lunch offered in my view a key  
formulation for what might work, in the quest for greater  
effectiveness at IGF. (Myself I have long held for the necessity of  
IGF ‘recommendations' – but see Bill’s thought.)

I hope I do his justice: Instead of discussions to produce  
‘recommendations,’ which because of impending clout mean struggle over  
text. Rather, focus discussion on ideas, and how different ideas  
compete or dovetail, a discussion that can be productive

Item
Myself, I found U-S-G Sha’s candor refreshing, including about himself  
and about his country. A genuine invitation to ‘say it like it is,’ in  
a United Nations setting, has to be a good occasion. (As to the  
comparison with the once-upon-a-time US appointee, Bolton, I find  
effectively no similarity and differences obviating.)

Item
John Curran, I thought, near the end of the afternoon, summarized the  
tensions between those pro and those con a separate process of  
Enhanced cooperation. See 2:33:48 in the UN video. (While U-S-G Sha  
offered appreciation for me by name at the end of an earlier comment,  
my impression was that he had John in mind, judging from the context.)

Item
Finally, as to the numbers of participants in the Consultation, my  
impression was closer to a count of 100 rather than 50. I will try to  
check.

David Allen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101227/64812333/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