[governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

[Izumi AIZU]

I asked the person involved with the negotiation at UN
if I can share the following annotated observation, and I
got the positive reply.

The draft text is in the "silent" status until the final discussion,
not supposed to be disclosed, but it's already leaked.

izumi

-------------

This text taken as a whole is a fairly satisfactory result:
IGF renewal without any major changes. In the to-ing and fro-ing of the
last three weeks'
informal negotiations in New York, we didn't get every change to the
G77 draft that we
wanted. In particular, I think it is good that the text:

- recognises the "importance of the IGF and its mandate as a
multi-stakeholder dialogue.....
in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability
and development of the Internet" ;

- states that the enhanced cooperation and IGF tracks of WSIS "may be
complementary";

- states that the Sharm consultation "generally welcomed" renewal of the
IGF mandate: this is more accurate and positive language than that of
the SG report;

- renews the mandate for 5 years according to the TA72 mandate, i.e.
without any change
and not contingent on CSTD WG recommendations on improving the IGF: so
our core objective has been met;

- advocates support for developing country "enhanced participation",
thereby advocating t he relevance of the IGF and its preparatory
meetings to the interests of developing countries - and helps our
message that "the IGF is for you: so make use of it" ;

- does not seek radically to restructure or re-organise the IGF;

- in particular does not create a new traditional UN bureau to run it
and there are no references at all to such radical options, despite
China tabling such language;

- maintains voluntary funding principle for the Secretariat (though
there may be more options) ;

- underscores the ECOSOC decision to set up a CSTD working group on
improvements which involves all stakeholders, to report mid-2011;

- stresses the need for national public policy process to include
multi-stakeholder approaches;

- generally promotes national, regional and international
multi-stakeholder partnerships which help institutionalise the IGF model
at all layers.

One other item that is worth mentioning: there was an attempt throughout
the negotiations to create a new reporting track, calling for the
Secretary General in the context of reporting on the progress made
towards ICT for Development to focus on progress in the "improvement" of
the IGF. This ran the risk of turning the ICT for Development Resolution
into an annual IGF resolution. We succeeded in countering that proposal
so that there is no specific reference in the text to 2nd Committee
reporting on the IGF.

However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
text), "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
clearly not the case.

The last reference to the IGF Secretariat was particularly
disappointing; we had tried to remove it because there had been no
comments in the formal consultations either in Sharm or online directly
criticising the work and the functioning of the Secretariat: rather the
opposite in fact in view of the many plaudits for the dedication and
achievements of both Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer.

We undertook a round of briefings of G77 missions at the UN before
the 2nd Committee met - including the G77 drafters and the lead for the
Least Developed Countries - to ensure they understood fully what the IGF
is, the strong level of support of stakeholders from all regions
including developing countries, its track record and successes, its open
preparatory consultation processes and how the IGF has evolved and
self-improved over the 5 years since the WSIS. These were also key
messages at the ICC/ISOC briefing on 21 October.

END
____________________________________________________________
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