[governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Fri Apr 1 08:25:49 EDT 2011
On 30.03.2011 21:13, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Hi Jeanette and all,
>
> Your e-mail is short, and yet, provides so much food for discussion. I
> envy your conciseness! :)
Thank you, Maciel, I guess I was just tired :-)
>
>
> Actually, I don't want to decide this question. I would prefer to
> look at these issues as a process rather than a binary decision.
>
>
> There are occasions we do need to make a decision. In the WG, either we
> would take by the hand the task of writting the report or we would leave
> it to the Secretariat.
I was only referring to the issue of outcomes. Since I did not follow
that meeting, I cannot assess the significance of the authorship of the
drafting report.
> We have faced the issue of formal outcome versus no outcome at all
> over several years. Both options have support from strong groups.
> The way out of such constellations is evolution not an either/or
> constellation.
>
>
> In my opinion we are not witnessing the same debate taking place over
> the years. The debate has changed, in an evolutionary manner, I would
> say. Three years ago there were those who would argue for strong
> recommendation from the IGF, even binding. Today, this option is out of
> the table. No stakeholder group defended anything like that in the WG.
> In general terms, we are between "no change" and "outcomes that reflect
> converging views and alternative policy options". There is no
> deliberation involved, as all different views would be reflected. This
> is change and evolution, in my view. Shouldn´t the ones that want "no
> outcomes" take a step towards the point of convergence and equilibrium?
Yes, no doubt, they should. And I fought for such an approach on the MAG
- to no avail. Still, if formal paths towards tackling the issue of
outcomes are blocked there remain informal paths such as experimenting
with outcomes on the regional and national level. What is more, formal
rules can always be reinterpreted over time.
>
>
> What I would have liked to see is an experimental approach where
> each annual IGF meeting will try out new versions of reporting
> taking on board the experiences from regional and national IGFs.
>
>
> Certainly, that would be interesting, I strongly support that idea as
> well. But it does not exclude any of the approaches above.
>
> In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have
> endorsed such an open process.
>
>
> Honestly, I think that this would be quite little for an expert WG to
> propose as the main improvement to the IGF,
Actually, right now I would be happy if we don't lose what we have
achieved over the past 5 years. The original mandate provides so much
space for evolution. In my view, the bottleneck isn't the mandate, the
bottleneck is the composition of the MAG!
and this would not address
> the concern expressed in the report of the Secretary-general, which
> served as base for the convening of the WG in the first place.
Don't we all agree that the concerns of the SG are more about the
multistakeholder approach as such than the concrete structure of the
IGF? The wording is part of a language game that should be treated as such.
jeanette
>
>
> jeanette
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marília
>
>
>
> And then perhaps, if we really
>
> must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to
> suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose
> planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard
> work we could have got some good results from the WG.
>
> It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society
> advocate on IG
> and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our
> mind. Can a
> multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed
> stuff
> on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with
> relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG -
> from an
> IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do
> so. This
> process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for
> IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue,
> developing
> background material around each, WG then helps plan the process
> at the
> IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate
> feeder
> workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF
> before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi
> stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages
> or 10 on
> key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively'
> clear policy
> paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my
> understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this
> is the
> only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy
> making.
> And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of
> India's
> proposal.
>
> Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who
> opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So,
> Wolfgang
> when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on
> 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by
> this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.
>
> I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be
> more
> comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative
> multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have
> clear
> political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the
> moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the
> secretariat
> at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would
> we then
> change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or
> alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more
> clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were
> not put
> there by a particular country whose political positions we generally
> agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time)
> whose
> political opinions we were much against. This is purely
> hypothetical,
> put putting real countries and real people in this imagined
> situation
> will greatly help make clear what I am driving at.
>
> I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main
> issues
> that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition
> and IGF
> funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in
> Annriette's
> and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue
> which was
> the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to
> determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's
> meeting.
> Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must
> most of
> all be informed by this issue.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear
> after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to
> reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The
> whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of
> this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
>
> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an
> unworkable environment which does not allow the production
> of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be
> surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned
> failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole
> direction and to discredite the innovative forms of
> multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for
> governments, which were not members in the group, to argue:
> "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as
> governments - are different and have other working methods.
> So let us alone when we try to translate our (national)
> agendas into an international dialogue."
>
> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in
> what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined
> "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward".
> In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If
> Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals
> which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF
> Working Group and if Nairobi becomes an "outstanding
> success", this will make life much more difficult for the
> governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to
> change the direction.
>
> What are the options now for civil society?
>
> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is,
> lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what
> the governments will do.
>
> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who
> have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of
> the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the
> aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with
> recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be
> discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee
> of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.
>
> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting
> procedure for an alternative report, inviting other
> non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to
> join the process. The report could be presented via a
> friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in
> Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could
> have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the
> title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve
> multistakeholder collaboration".
>
> Best wishes
>
> 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, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> 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, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> 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, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list