AW: [governance] Re: moving more
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Mon Feb 28 03:27:56 EST 2011
Hi all
I agree completely that the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements is
not bottom-up :)
What was encouraging at the Montreux meeting were three things:
* the importance giving to the 'open consultation' process in preparing
IGF meetings, and also in getting input for the working group's report
* agreement on the IGF's basic character as a forum for dialogue on
policy, not for negotiating policy
* agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation
The points we agreed on as 'key elements for the working group's report'
will be opened to the IGF community at large.
This will happen in the next few days. I think that EVERYONE on this
list should respond in their individual, and institutional capacities.
Anriette
On 27/02/11 15:49, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 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
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
____________________________________________________________
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