[governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?

Tue Apr 5 13:32:58 EDT 2011

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <
bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Parminder,
>
> You made, as usual, a very detailed, thoughtful and passionate statement. I
> believe you raised very valid questions - at least in the eyes of a
> non-participant in the WG exercise.
>
> However, like Jeanette, I am always cautious when I spot the emergence of
> too rigid either/or alternatives, that risk tending towards: "which side are
> you on" ? and rapidly : "there is a right side and a wrong side, and
> unfortunately my interlocutors happen to be on the wrong side" :-) We've
> seen where this can lead in history. So let's pause for a second when doing
> the post-mortem of the WG.
>
> There is indeed an important issue regarding the concept of working groups
> (multi-stakeholder) and the role of secretariats. But they are not
> necessarily antagonistic: good secretariat is needed for efficient working
> groups and secretariat without community input rapidly means capture.
>

If the report of workshop deliberations / summary IGF deliberations have to
truly reflect the mood of the IGF, the very process of generating the
report/summary has to be a process so open and transparent as the process in
tune with the openness of the IGF. This can also be a participative,
collaborative process - a wikipedialike or at least a wiki process of
collaborative summarization. You have mentioned the possibility of capture
in a situation where Secretariat acts without community input.
Argumentatively speaking, the reverse could also be true, without checks and
balances in the community process. What if a workshop is proposed by an
Interest Group with a Chair of the workshop sympathetic to that Interest and
acts alone to produce a summary or a set of recommendations in the best
interest of the Interest Group?

>From within the IGF community, the reports and recommendation need to arise
as a participative process that could include a Secretariat. The report
needs to be a transparent and accessible document open to edits and comments
during and after the process of summarization. As a permanent reference the
deliberations of all debates have to remain on record  as transcripts, video
records together with the presentations on screen during the debate more in
the nature of a recorded abode meeting.

Sivasubramanian M

So the debate can be a little bit more nuanced.
>

> Marilia made a very balanced and useful analysis, highlighting weakness in
> the chairmanship of the group (obvious and expected from the onset, I must
> say) and distributing responsibilities quite evenly. In particular she
> rightly pointed the absence of real direct and trustful interaction among
> the participants and the resurgence of typical drafting practices (square
> brackets). The fact that some participants may have come from the missions
> in Geneva (instead of having been participants in the IGF) certainly made a
> - not surprising - difference: same cause same effects as the PrepCom 1 of
> the first phase of the WSIS, the CSTD meetings, and the recent ECOSOC
> discussions.
>
> In any case, the lines are moving among groups and homogeneity is not the
> norm any more. That is one thing I take from Parminder's comments. We must
> therefore all avoid keeping old frameworks of reference to interpret
> proposals by one actor or the other according to the preconceived idea of
> what they "naturally are going to propose", irrespective of what is actually
> in their text. It would be interesting in that respect to use anonymous
> contributions: some proposals by India would certainly have looked different
> in the eyes of many participants if nobody had known where they came from.
> Who would dare to try the exercise ?
>
> The task ahead of us is not to reinforce oppositions or to hatch unbalanced
> compromises, but to identify non-zero-sum solutions: I cannot believe there
> is no way to move forward. The question now is: what is the right format to
> produce constructive interaction ?
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Parminder,
>>
>>
>>
>>  Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference
>>> across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary
>>> proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and
>>> the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the
>>> 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting
>>> the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with
>>> secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of
>>> multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder
>>> working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And
>>> depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the
>>> main contestation at the WG we are on.
>>>
>>
>> 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. 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. 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.
>> In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have
>> endorsed such an open process.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>> 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
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
> Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110405/ad8b68f2/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, 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