[governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Apr 7 00:54:07 EDT 2011
Apologies for the font mix up in my earlier email, which was caused by
the cut paste of the quoted part from another document.
The third important issue in the WG meeting was about IGF funding.
At the meeting, no one advocated that voluntary and mixed funding should
be discontinued. However, developing countries insisted that UN should
have at least have some regular budget devoted to the IGF, which is at
present not the case. *There is no official UN budget devoted to the IGF
at all*. This inter alia causes a depriortization and demotion of IGF in
the UN system vis a vis other UN related organizations, which is of
course not a good thing. Developing country reps also argued the case at
length of how an official policy related body cannot be allowed to
remain dependent on private or voluntary funding alone. This is a
perfectly logical assertion. Policy related forums cannot be left
hostage to unpredictable and unstable funding which voluntary funding
obviously means. One can think of any official policy forums in our
respective national contexts. Would we accept, for instance, if there
were to be an official 'ICT in schools' public forum for policy
discussion and input dependent entirely on private finding? I think we
would all claim it to be a practice contrary to all cannons and values
of public life.
However, governments of developed countries, supported by business and
technical community, were for carrying on with the present funding
model, and making no change to it at all , especially not seeking the
opening up of an UN line of budget for it. They however never directly
addressed the question as to why were they opposed to opening up a
committed UN budgetary line *in addition to* all other funds that IGF
receives today. For developing countries this was as importantly an
issue of principle, as of practical import (whereby they rightly argued;
what happens to the IGF if for some reason all voluntary support was to
cease suddenly, or over a period of time).
Since, we in the IGC have spoken often, and at length, about the needed
independence for the IGF, it may be useful to examine in that light the
different propositions that were on the table at the WG meeting with
regard to IGF funding. As mentioned, at least in my opinion, this was
one of the three key areas of disagreement to which the stalemate at the
WG meeting can be attributed. (Just to remind, I have discussed the two
other key areas/issues in my earlier emails, which can also be found below.)
Parminder
On Wednesday 06 April 2011 06:57 PM, parminder wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Sorry for the long delay, but to finish my report on WG on IGF
> improvements:
>
> I had mentioned that, in my view, there were three key issues on which
> a possible WG report with recommendations on IGF improvements got
> stuck; IGF outcomes, selection of MAG members (especially non gov
> members) and IGF funding. India's contribution had important proposals
> on all these key issues, which in my view were quite reasonable, as I
> argue below.
>
> My earlier email dealt with the most important of these issues - IGF
> outcomes. The present one will list some of the key constestations
> around the other two key issues.
>
> _Selection of MAG members:_
>
> This issue for me is very important vis a vis establishing the meaning
> as well as legitimacy of multistakeholderism. And I hope we can
> generate an internal debate on the positions different actors took on
> this issue in the WG, and take otherwise. I quote the relevant parts
> from India's submission in full in this regard:
>
> "The selection of non-government representatives to the MAG has to
> be made more transparent and democratic/representative to better
> represent different sections of the society, more so the
> marginalised. Efforts have to be made to obtain as globally
> representative a group as possible. At present, there are no
> specific processes to ensure these imperatives, and the selection
> process is largely /ad hoc /and mediated by some key global
> stakeholder bodies, without due transparency about the process
> followed to ensure that the diversity of interests and views in
> that particular stakeholder group are duly represented."
>
> "We recommend an accountable, transparent and diversified
> stakeholder selection process for stakeholder representatives.
> Such a process should demonstrate its connectedness to the full
> range of diversity within each stakeholder group, especially those
> from developing countries, and otherwise less represented groups.
> Each stakeholder group while selecting its representatives should
> describe the process used in making the selection, and also
> specifically mention what steps were taken to include a full
> diversity of views and interests, and less represented groups,
> including those from developing counties. To get the selection
> process right is very important for the success of the unique
> multi-stakeholder experiment in global governance that the IGF
> represents."
>
> "One way of ensuring that specific interests are kept out of MAG
> is by stipulating that the business sector members should not be
> representatives of specific private companies, but represent
> different trade associations like in the areas of telecom,
> software companies, etc. The technical community members could
> similarly include representatives from key technical and academic
> institutions. The selection process for civil society members
> could be made similarly democratic, with representatives selected
> by a network of NGOs working in areas associated with Internet
> policies, thus representing a really broad spectrum of civil society."
>
> (quote ends)
>
> In addition was also proposed a table indicating a quota based
> selection from each geographical region so that geographic diversity
> was ensured. (At the meeting India did say that this was only to serve
> as a broad guideline, and was meant to stress that concern that there
> should be enough internal diversity within non gov reps in the MAG,
> and it should not get dominated by reps from the North.) In the table
> proposed by India, the total number of MAG members remained more or
> less the same as present while there was a small increase in the
> number of gov reps (from 22 to 25), quite large increase in CS reps (7
> to 11) and some reduction for business (13 to 9) and tech community
> reps (13 to 9). As mentioned, India made it clear that all this was
> open to a reasoned discussion.
>
> I find the above proposals quite reasonable. Multistakeholderism is
> for me a means to ensure that
>
> 1) a sufficient and full diversity of legitimate interests are
> represented in policy making processes
>
> 2) the accent has to be on getting in those interests that are
> otherwise (through other processes of representation) are most likely
> to be kept out, or under-represented
>
> (3) there has to be conscious, deliberate and very strong measures, on
> an ongoing manner, to ensure that a multistakeholder process is not
> captured by certain dominant groups, which would defeat the very
> purpose of multistakeholderism ( in the same as our struggles for more
> democracy represent our efforts to ensure that the 'governmental'
> method of representation is not captured)
>
>
> I see the India's proposal completely in keeping with what I take to
> be as the key tenets and logic of multistakeholderism. And therefore I
> supported it. However, once again, there was no constructive
> engagement with this detailed proposal. Business and technical members
> said that the manner in which 'they' ( theywho? is of course never
> clear) choose members to represent their stakeholder group should be
> left to them and no guidelines etc are necessary. I do not agree to
> this argument. It is setting up multistakeholderism for capture,
> which is a big problem many democratic governments have with it.
> Progressive civil society certainly has a big problem with such
> possibilities of capture of MSism. We ourselves would like to see
> strong and specific processes towards ensuring that such capture does
> not take place. As long as we agree on this imperative, what those
> processes would in fact look like can always be discussed. This was
> also India's position, and they wanted a discussion on this issue.
> Here is a clear instance of some developing countries coming forward
> for doing a constructive engagement with multi-stakeholderism and key
> non-gov stakeholders shying away. They need to answer why did they do so.
>
> Business and technical community while refusing to engage with India's
> proposal were intent on pushing the 'triage' proposal that had come
> from the last MAG meeting. As per this proposal a committee of old MAG
> members will do a kind of triage over recs coming from different
> stakeholder groups, who would be left to themselves to choose their
> process of selection of their reps and forwarding the names to this
> committee, without any further guidelines of openess, transparency
> diversity, representativeness etc. There are at least two things wrong
> with this proposal - one, that the old MAG members committee would
> perpetuate a nincestuous system of inclusion and exclusion which I am
> not at all comfortable with. Even worse is the proposition that, for
> instance, business group members will decide on selections from civil
> society. One can well understand what kind of exclusions and
> inclusions this will entail. It is important to mention that many of
> the civil society members of MAG opposed such a system of selection,
> and for unclear reasons the proposal was taken as adopted by the MAG
> meeting despite this opposition (Katitiza, Graciela, Fouad, Valeria
> and others present can vouch for this).
>
> The issues that this above debate raises are crucial to engage with
> for anyone who champions multistakeholderism, and i hope we in IGC can
> also discuss them throughly here.
>
> Let me discuss the IGF funding issue in my next email.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> On Tuesday 29 March 2011 11:57 PM, parminder wrote:
>> Dear All
>>
>> I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what
>> I think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements.
>>
>> "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.""
>>
>> Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be
>> constructed here. It is a predictable script with predictable
>> villains - of course, those developing countries, who else. A UN
>> meeting on any IG issue perhaps need not even happen for this
>> 'result' and 'analysis' of it to be produced :) . I keep hoping
>> however that we would open our minds to look beyond this predictable
>> response that we seem to remain stuck in.
>>
>> Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already
>> predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note
>> that developing countries had been seeking early and greater number
>> of meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was
>> not heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted
>> this WG to fail as it finally did?
>>
>> Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if
>> it, some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of
>> that meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing
>> countries wanted a multistakeholder drafting group to work between
>> the two meetings to come up with a draft with which the second
>> meeting could start. Everyone knew that was the only way to produce a
>> report within the 2 days of the WG meeting that were left when the
>> group reassembled. A multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed
>> with about the same ratio as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5 non
>> gov members. However, on civil society's prompting some developing
>> countries (lead here by Brazil) proposed that civil society can have
>> 3 members instead of the originally proposed one becuase they
>> represent greater diversity of views, with one member of business,
>> one of tech comminuty etc. Business and tech community, and then some
>> major devloping countries, said a clear no to this proposal to
>> expanded civil society membership of the proposed drafting group.
>>
>> Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a
>> drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech
>> community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting
>> this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I
>> will stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society,
>> because this question is also important in terms of the most central
>> substantive issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key
>> point on which disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG
>> failed to prepare any recs.
>>
>> Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder
>> working group based processes to produce key substantive documents in
>> the IG space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an
>> activity?
>>
>> (If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we
>> are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding
>> substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and
>> specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.)
>>
>> In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of
>> the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an
>> incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other
>> (developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder
>> drafting group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing
>> it. No one responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to
>> this paradox.
>>
>> Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real
>> differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think
>> with some deft managing we could still have come out with something
>> substantial, but on that later.)
>>
>> There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes, MAG
>> selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding.
>> Among these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this
>> issue could have been agreed upon we would have got a very good
>> report, and that would really have been a substantial step forward
>> for the IGF, and for global IG. Without looking throughly at what
>> happened around this central issue we cannot get the right picture of
>> the WG proceedings.
>>
>> Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal (
>> enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was
>> not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the real
>> issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we start
>> assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us, each of
>> us, and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this proposal
>> is fine by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the right way
>> to go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be blamed for WG
>> failure, not those who proposed it, and those who supported it.
>>
>> There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on
>> the table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times.
>> I specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the
>> way to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of
>> producing what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain how
>> this process would be different from the Chairman's summary, and a
>> shorter bulletted Chairman's summary, already being prepared at
>> present. I never got a clear reply, which if it was put on table
>> would have constituted a specific outcomes related proposal.
>>
>> 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.
>> 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
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110407/6dba5e05/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list