[governance] Re: moving more

[Izumi AIZU]

Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps.
Now at CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending
three hours in the lounge with access to wifi, electricity
and some foods and drinks.

My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough and
just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to create
problems by some members.

Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please correct
here if my note is not accurate.

India
How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap
need more tangible outcome, or recommendations
continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public
policy issues, asking for an answer
questions be agreed upon by MAGs, policy concerns only on global level

Outcome documents – to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA

Parminder
desire to move to this direction
non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF

<snip>
Brazil
support Indian proposal –
 have ability to gather different opinions from different stakeholders
we need to go further
means for participation – from developing countries

National and regional IGFs
 seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs
  not bureaucratic, formal structure
from Izumi’s remarks, we learn from civil society, or business, but
also you can learn from governments, on transparency, accountability
etc

Chair
Summing:
1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better
2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional

Parminder
Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF without
having parity of CSTD document, as such
Idea of process is quite flexible

Izumi
CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction,
personally it’s in the right direction.
but be it flexible, lightweight and decentralized
lightweight – use Internet applications as much as possible, if not facebook

[end of note on this part]
----

What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome
oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a
mechanical manner for their
decision making at all.

India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but at
least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room.

Brazil came up with the following language *as draft*

"The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these
outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related
to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be
considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect
convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where
there are differing views and alternative suggestions."

While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, the
phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the
outcome. In this sense Brazil
captured the sense of the room collectively, and did not
give explicit support to Indian' proposal in details.

But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary of
the meeting.

And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and
I don't think we reached any consensus on these points.

To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. I
might be naiive, but this is what I brought back.

Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the
questionnaire in November as our consensus document.
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45

"As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
which contributed a great deal."

"a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough]
consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as
model, reference or common framework. Working process towards
achieving the consensus will create better and deeper understandings
amongst different stakeholders."

I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines.

I hope these will provide some more clarification.

izumi

2011/2/27 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> Hi,
>
> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true?
>
> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position.
>
> If not, glad to hear it.
>
> a.
>
> _______________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
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