AW: [governance] Re: moving more

Avri Doria avri at ella.com
Sun Feb 27 03:46:24 EST 2011 

Hi Wolfgang,

I appreciate your comments.

It is, however, often a very small wording change from something tolerable to something intolerable.  And as you know, probably better than me, it is in the review of text and in the end game that these simple word substitutions get made.  A blink at the wrong moment could seriously threaten the bottom-up people centered nature of the Internet.

So I truly appreciate your vigilance as a member of the CSTD WG. that is currently messing with the IGF's evolving bottom-up nature in a top-down manner.

a.


On 27 Feb 2011, at 07:03, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> Avri
> 
> your concerns are valid but this was t so decided. There was no discussion about an formal reporting mechanism. However it depends now from the concrete formulations in the report what is the understanding of "linking". BTW there is no formal drafting group but an open working group which will discuss the draft of the secretariat two days before the next meeting.
> 
> w
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
> Gesendet: Sa 26.02.2011 23:19
> An: IGC
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: moving more
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the update.
> 
> Personally I think that there is a pretty large difference between:
> 
> "outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related
> to Internet Governance issues. "
> 
> and
> 
> "Message goes to CSTD,"
> 
> - One can be seen as sending messages to the organization responsible for  Internet governance such as those who are dong the job how
> 
> - And one can be seen as reporting to a UN body as if it were an organization responsible for Internet governance.
> 
> At the very least it does look like we are on a very slippery slope sliding toward having the CSTD recommending UN control , by ECOSOC and the GA since that is who CSTD reports, over Internet governance with at least some of the CS representatives advocating that point of view.
> 
> In my opinion this is frightening.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:52, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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