[governance] CSTD

Mon May 24 03:48:44 EDT 2010

Hi Anriette

I agree entirely with your assessment.  Just a few bits of amplification:

On May 24, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> Having been at the CSTD and having sat through all the negotiation
> sessions till late Friday afternoon (before the resolution was
> finalised) I am convinced that those governments who want internet
> governance to be located within an intergovermental space only use IGF
> reform as means bargaining with those in favour of IGF continuation.
> They are not really all that interested in IGF reform (with the
> exception of India and Brazil and Egypt who do take the IGF seriously
> and also IGF reform).
> 
> What the majority of IGF critics want is simply an intergovernmental
> forum. Depending on their positions they would be open to having some
> input from other stakeholders in a 'balanced' way which means it has to
> be managed and controlled. In the case of civil society there will need
> to be some form of civil society representation.

And if the IGF is to them principally a bargaining chit to use on other chessboards and not someplace they want to really engage in multistakeholder decision making, one has to wonder whether trying to turn it into a decision making body isn't a bit chimeric and a poor use of scarce CS energies.  I'd rather see us pushing to open up to participation and accountability those bodies that they do take seriously and want to use for decision making.  It can be done, sometimes...look at the OECD, a somewhat underrated achievement.  This is why I thought we should be objecting more to the distorted reading of EC as pure intergovernmentalism with the ITU dedicated group held up as exhibit A, despite TAIS 71's clear statement that EC is to be MS.
> 
> As Parminder pointed out the lack of substantial progress on enhanced
> cooperation is being used to diminish the IGF.

Sure, but if there'd been more progress toward what they want they'd be using that to diminish the IGF, too.
> 
> However, I think that to believe that IGF reform will satisfy those
> governments most vocal about enhanced cooperation is dangerous.

Yup
> 
> They want intergovernmental control in a forum where the US government
> does not play a dominant role, directly or indirectly.

Ahd where non-state actors, including all those who actually do the work, have little or no role.  Great model.
> 
> Some, like South Africa, are very explicit that they want the ITU to be
> the home of internet public policy decision-making.
> 
> They are likely to be much more unhappy with an IGF that has
> decision-making authority driven by multi-stakeholder processes than an
> IGF that only facilitates dialogue.
> 
> As civil society we need to refine our strategies. I believe we have to
> both take enhanced cooperation seriously, AND, fight hard for the IGF to
> continue as a forum with a loose relationship to the UN.
> 
> We cannot afford to pretend that enhanced cooperation will sort itself
> out. (EC in the sense that the developing country governments define it,
> which I think means: "cooperative intergovernmental process with all
> governments having one vote as in the UN system and with controlled
> participation from other stakeholder groups".)  As for the balance
> between public policy and 'technical' policy.. they seem to agree that
> there is a difference, and they are more interested in the public
> policy.. but of course where public ends and technical start is not
> always clear.
> 
> And, we cannot afford to NOT fight hard for the IGF to continue as it is
> the only space where we can have open dialogue and I remain convinced
> that this is extremely important. 
> 
> The differences in position among governments on internet public policy
> are so vast that an intergovernmental policy space is likely to spend
> much of its time in deadlock.

Absolutely.  

> Civil society's agenda in such a space
> (assuming there will be some way for us to be in this space in a
> 'balanced' way) is likely to be set by governments and the contestation
> between them. 
> 
> Is this ALL really what we want?
> 
> There is obviously more to say than this, and I have always been in
> favour of the IGF sending stronger messages to other institutions and to
> governments. I also believe we should try and see IG from the
> perspective of those governments outside North America and the EU. They
> have legitimate concerns.

Yes, yes.  But how to convince them that those concerns can be fruitfully explored and addressed in a non-traditional setting?  This is part of why I've been banging on about making development more of a central focus in IGF...although it's not obvious that this will help if their driving concern is reifying state power.
> 
> As civil society our primary responsibility should be to ensure that
> internet public policy spaces, both decision-making and dialogue spaces,
> remain open to our participation and that human rights and
> rights-oriented social, cultural and economic development concerns
> becomes a stronger driver in these spaces.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 00:31 +0530, parminder wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Milton L Mueller wrote: 
>>> P:
>>> Why did it not come out stronger or more directly in favor of using the IGF for the development of GAPPs? (globally applicable public policy principles)
>>> --MM
>>> 
>> For one, because I have tried often and long in this space to get
>> civil society to rally around some possibilities  of the IGF
>> structuring itself to be able to  do some such thing.  But this has
>> largely been unsuccessful.
>> 
>> It does surprise me often that many who keep asking for
>> multi-stakeholder systems to have strong policy role, instead of
>> intergov models, at the same time do not support IGF making any
>> progress towards making recommends, which is the least that would be
>> implied for it to take up the role you mention above. (I have tried my
>> best for it, and still do. We supported a CSTD working group with
>> likely multistakeholder involvement to suggest specific improvements
>> in the IGF which hopefully should be in the direction of making it
>> more purposeful.)
>> 
>> Almost the last straw was the move earlier this year towards perhaps
>> even doing away with the MAG, which is the only structures part of the
>> IGF whereby it can move in the directions I, and presumably you, would
>> like it to.  
>> 
>> We continue to believe that IGF should have a very strong role in
>> development of globally applicable public policy principles. 
>> 
>> Also, our statement had a basic advocacy focus towards seeking some
>> movement on EC, and we did not want to dilute it, especailly when many
>> others were strongly using the ruse of the IGF to resist any such
>> movement. Our statement  was coupled with a lot of lobbying with
>> developing country govs and others. I think we would see an open
>> consultation meeting on EC to be called by the Secretary General
>> before the end of the year. 
>> 
>> Parminder  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:34 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: [governance] CSTD
>>> 
>>> Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on
>>> Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day
>>> sitting. More on this later. parminder
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> 
>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> anriette esterhuysen - executive director
> association for progressive communications
> p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
> anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
> http://www.apc.org
> 
> APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org
> Thank you for helping make APC what it is today!
> ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy!
> Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui!
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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