AW: [governance] Re: moving more
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sun Feb 27 08:49:46 EST 2011
I agree with Avri and c.a. on this... I fail to see how an externally
selected group drawn from a self-selected group reporting to a top down
appointed group and communicating with a group whose provenance I have no
idea of can be understood to be "bottom up", but maybe I've missed something
along the way.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Cc: IGC
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Re: moving more
Right on, Avri. Your concerns are
mine too.
--c.a.
sent from a dumbphone
On 27/02/2011, at 06:40, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We probably have a different definition of top down versus bottom-up.
> Something for a discussion some evening at the IG Summer School and
> elsewhere.
>
> When a select group in full transparency makes its recommendations
> based on discussions held by an open consultative process that are
> open to comment and revision by that open consultative process we have
> something that approaches bottom-up (though of course there is always
> a movement in public policy process between the people and those
> chosen to represent - when those chosen to represent admit to being
> representatives - and back to the people and back to the
> representatives until an annealing point is reached) we have something
> that I think approaches a bottom-up process. I think many of the I*
> organization (including the IGF itself) show variations on this
> dynamic.
>
> On the other hand when there is a group of people, even if they are
> not all government employees, acting in their own capacity making
> recommendations to an intergovernmental body for another
> intergovernmental body to approve, i tend to think it is an
> essentially top-down process. True not all top-down processes are
> bad, some can be quite benevolent, but that does not stop them from
> being essentially top-down. I have every hope that the CSTD WG
> process will be benevolent, and from what you and Izumi are saying it
> sounds like it started out that way. And yes, we are all so grateful
> that they let you in the room and treated you as peers. That was
> generous of them, and I am sure that as long as you all behave, they
> will continue to let you speak as equals.
>
> a.
>
> On 27 Feb 2011, at 10:05, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Avri
>>
>> Montreux was not "top down". In contrary, I was positively surprised
>> that "bottom up" is seen now by everybody (who spoke) as a consensus
principle for the IGF. I do not see - at the moment - that somebody wants to
put an oversightr body over the IGF. However, you are right, the IGF
operates under a mechanism which gives the UN General Assembly (via UNCSTD
and ECOSOC) a special role. But this is the case since 2005.
>>
>> One conclustion is to strengthen the collaboration with governments
>> who favour MS and bottom up.
>>
>> w
>>
>>
>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Sun 2/27/2011 9:46 AM
>> To: IGC
>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Re: moving more
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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