[governance] Note on Informal Discussion hosted by ISOC on CSTD WG for IGF

[Izumi AIZU]

IGF Geneva  Feb Meetings

Feb 22
13:50 – 15:45
at ISOC office in Geneva


Note on Informal Discussion hosted by ISOC

Below is my very sketchy memo on the meeting by the following people
on the CSTD WG on IGF Improvement (and MAG)

Attendants:
Bill Graham, Ayesha Hassan, Martin Boyle, Anriette Esterhuysen,
Desiree Miloshevic, Hartmut Glaser, Marilia Maciel, Oskar
Robles-Garay, Marylyn Cade, Bill Drake, Mohamed Al Bashir (ICANN),
Melani, Patrik Fältström, Sam Dickinson (APNIC), Avri Doria, Teletha
Swhinheart, Raul Echeberria, Jeff (AT&T), Parminder Jeet Shin and
several more.

(#Please add names I missed or mistaken)




------

Bill Graham, Introduction

Aeysha Hassan
A few words

Marylyn Cade
Current status:
Dec 17 – de ja vue moment
states really resumed their traditions of participation of others,
 IGO – regional governmental
Good news – some states who were not CSTD members were supportive
Fredrick still consulting – meeting with some states, individually, small groups
5 Latin States and USG met to compare their notes
expressed wish of most of states is not to revisit the process
  India, Iran, South Africa  - joined by Sri Lanka and Egypt
  still refusing non-state actors not to participate  -
 it will look like 17th
 will be more informal –
 some states still objecting to the outline, others fully embraced
open question – contribution that business proposed ^ Chair’s report
and secretary reports be being actively included
other states insisting only questionnaire be there

there are 10 governmental entities put their names forward
  UN Economic Commission for Africa
 League of state, Council of Europe, and EU

Sri Lanka, India and South Africa – objecting – joined by Chile
 they don’t want regional entities to participate
 Sri Lanka – remaining IGOs – pick 5
 UNDP not decided to fight for seat
 UNDESA included anyway
 WIPO ?

Mongi will use big fight

Anriette
India, South Africa - Jan 31
 sent question – to the Chair- at the day of deadline  - being disruptive

Governmental members should decide the process

Marylyn
most states have not submitted comments
3 of 4 do not have instruction from Capital
some states have not submitted formal names


Anriette
 MSH – non-negotiable
 Overall format – not policy making, but dialogue- capacity-building
 exploring views
 increase development country participation – be led by developing countries
not about format

Format of events be changed dramatically –
 workshops – became token, rather than topic related discussion
 quality – sloppy,
number of speakers

proposing – workshops can be fed more effectively
 key thing – is have more outcome oriented approach
 messages – need not to be consensus-based,
 more capacity building

Working methods – link with regional and national levels

recommendation on Secretary and MAG

remote participation


Martin Boyle
echo with Anriette –
 policy dialogue
other things
 – most notably is the profile and the visibility of IGF
 getting IGF -
get higher level of engagement from people involved


Marilia
bottom-line –
“openness”  - should be guaranteed – no barrier of participation
flexibility
guidance – from bottom-up, not written anywhere
 important to write down
2 principles – to be consolidated
 IGF should be seen as process, taken all around the year
 there be clear rules of procedure –
“public policy dialogue” – should lead into some place where policy
making takes place

out reach of IGF – regarding developing countries
role of MAGs – be changed

Patrik
from Business

secretariat be based in Geneva
Financing – funding from wide enough sources so as not one stakeholder
can use their funding as a form of control
MAG – organizers of the meeting – open meeting
 evolution of MAG – part of IGF evolution

Marylyn
MSH – definition of MSH – in the IGF  - is unique, be preserved
 on equal footing, with open, bottom-up participation
 not be confused by OECD, ITU –

I am getting the sense – there was a panel – on MSH at previous meetings
certain speakers

Aysha
Open participation model –
 other process including CSTD – accreditation is coming back

Anriette
slippage of Athens – badges – not color-coded
since Brazil it has been
no color-code be there- unique –
uniqueness of MSH model – we have to be more specific
there is specific threat – having both technical community and private
sector - have two separate groups

Theresa Swinehart
transparency

Merani
 input from Tech community
 about the importance – not negotiation, but open exchange
 remote participation
 non-binding process, sharing knowledge, inform the discussion
national and regional IGF are direct results of openness of IGF

Bill Drake
I agree with much of what have been said
Echo with what Marylyn said – on Dec 17 meeting
Same UNCTAD meeting – how folks were trained – not comfortable –
 that would fundamentally later IGF – to worse
anything done by non-governmental folks, try to get codifying language
 on equal footing etc
on Output – still an umbrella for WGs
messages from workshops are not interesting to me
a more structured, substituted – a year of serious work of dialogue
with adequate secretariat support

on MAG- not over body of decision making-  that be a disaster
 not that usefull for this kind of process
 focus on overall coordination on Main session –
 don’t make centralized power – whole kind of bargaining
 stay as more open planning process

Marylyn
I have concern on elevating MAG
CSTD will have reports –
in May, makes sure to get resolution with right language
what to do with Second Committee
Fredrick could have resisted, but did not
secretariat of CSTD did not put – non-rules of procedures -

Marilia
we can reach consensus – IGF is a place for policy dialogue – that
needs to be connected to policy making body
IGF to have formal coordination with policy making
 First – summary of discussion
 messages are non-binding

Izumi
I also share the real danger with CSTD process and UNDESA on EC
 that demotes the MSH model/principle/practice

Need to lobby governments
 WSIS and WGIG process experience and efforts – was not given
automatically, we made a lot of efforts, talking with developing
country governments etc.

Do we have strategy for active, engaging Secretariat?
Much of open, bottom-up, unique exercise were taken care quietly by
the Secretariat and their staff, friendly volunteers etc
if we have some writings by former Secretariat, endorsed by MAG

Oscar

Desiree
define MSH model
 Diversity of composition of this group – be kept
output –

Anriette
We have to de-politicize the Chair
On message – just beginning to discuss

++

Bill Drake
Secretary – can provide research based inputs for dialogue
 factual information

“Coordination” – UN Terms, everybody loves it unless they are being coordinated
How does it work at IGF?  With WIPO, ICANN Board?
 There is a risk, because there are vast communities in each of these
organizations
how coordination works – needs serious thinking
 some cross-cutting issues – there is room that may work

Anriette
Bill, you are right –
 Dynamic coalition has not worked –
 something between, low-key DC,
to profile IGF – hard –
 political risk –


Bill Graham
Wrap up
Funding
Heaviness of IGF
Encourage you – 15 of CSTD WG members to exchange views.

Ayesha Hassan
Thank you and ISOC
Report - be May
____________________________________________________________
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