[governance] WGIGF inputs

Tue Jan 25 17:04:50 EST 2011

Hi Parminder,

I agree very much with your approach, to try to think about the broader
picture at the same time that we try to come out with concrete suggestions
under the several topics in the draft. No doubt that this broad analysis
will help to keep us on track, be coherent and avoid zooming our suggestions
too much in a way that we get lost in details.

The political and institutional scenario in which the IGF is included – MDG,
WSIS, CSTD – as well as the text of the AG resolution that renews the
mandate, shows that one of the fundamental concerns that underpins this
Internet governance matrix in UN is promoting development. And development
needs to be sustained by public policy.

One of the most important shortcomings when we think about the IGF is that
it did not satisfactorily fulfill the role of being a facilitator for policy
development. Improving the IGF dynamics in a way that is can provide
multistakeholder input for policy development should be one of main goals in
our current exercise. There are many unexplored links between the IGF and
other UN bodies (including the CSTD) that already have a role in policy
development. And if an enhanced cooperation mechanism gets implemented, the
IGF needs to be deeply linked with it as well. We need to define exactly
what it means to be “complementary” to enhanced cooperation. This may be
explored in question 7.

One conclusion of the above is that the IGF needs to produce outcomes fit
for policy development, which lead us to the discussion of question number
3. Also, the Secretariat needs to be strengthened and the role of the MAG
needs to be reviewed, so it can meaningfully assist on the process of
transforming the rough summary of discussions into something that can orient
the development of policy, which leads us to the discussion of question 6.

Marília

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As an early supporter of these ideas, I would like to hightlight the
> following from Parminder's mail:
>
>
> The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically with a
> 'view to linking it to the broader
> dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's
> complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is an
> important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements.
>
> Those intersections between a) IGF and the broader dialogue and, b) IGF and
> enhanced cooperation need to be designed.
>
> The IGF will be needed as an agora, a place for discussion among all
> stakeholders without negotiations, in the Internet Governance ecosystem. One
> way to strengthen its relationships with decision taking entities in the
> Internet Governance Ecosystem is through its results: e.g. report, messages,
> etc. This is one part of the equation. The other part of the equation will
> be to have a way of reviewing if messages, report, etc. had been taken into
> account in other entities.
>
> IGF is an example of enhanced cooperation, at least in having everybody at
> the same level. In other settings, in spite of Westphalia, there are States
> more equal than others. Additionally, other entities of the IG ecosystem
> could take advantage of the IGF by communicating to the IGF community their
> results, methods of work, etc which may also be a way of observing if the
> WSIS IG principles are evolving in the IG ecosystem.
>
> The two processes may be complementary as the resolution says. For once,
> the non-negotiating nature of the IGF is not going to change. And, on the
> other hand, EC, as focused by the Tunis Agenda, may evolve towards more
> formal arrangements.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  Dear All
>>
>> Excuse me to start a new thread in addition to the separate ones based on
>> the different questions from the *draft* structure sent out for the WGIGF
>> report. The reason for this is that while we discuss the details, we should
>> focus on the fact that this is a much higher level exercise for seeking
>> possible structural reforms in the IGF, beyond the kind of things that can
>> be done through evolutionary practices guided by the MAG. The WGIGF report
>> will be submitted to the UN GA which is expected to take an appropriate
>> decision on what structural improvements are needed in the IGF.
>>
>> A good way to begin at such foundational times is to look at the 'why' of
>> the whole this. Why does the IGF exist and what do we want from it. Such an
>> examination can then guide us to looking the the necessary structural
>> changes.
>>
>> The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically with a
>> 'view to linking it to the broader
>> dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's
>> complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is an
>> important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements. The
>> there is the WSIS mandate of the IGF against which we must check its present
>> performance and look at required improvements. Added to it are the our own
>> civil society interests of what 'change we want to see happen' and explore
>> how IGF improvements can contribute to that basic objective.
>>
>> How we (my organisation and the CS networks we work with) relate to the
>> IGF is vis a vis our concern that the Internet is one of the most potent
>> social forces today, and at present its development may to a good extent be
>> determined by the interests of those who are already most powerful. We
>> therefore look at every opportunity to democratise the 'control' over the
>> directions that Internet's development takes. In this regard not only
>> greater participation is necessary but actual forums where the required
>> public interest policy making can take place are needed. The main focus here
>> is global forums, because that is the context we are in here, and in any
>> case the Internet is inherently global, and most of the decisions that shape
>> the Internet are global in their impact.
>>
>> We are not satisfied with IGF being just another global conference on IG
>> issues, which is something any private actor could as well hold. Granted
>> that IGF is open to anyone (who has the necessary funds) and that its agenda
>> and structure is shaped by a multistakeholder group, which is a big plus.
>> However, we need to judge it on its impact of real people's lives, which is
>> mediated through its impact on global Internet related policies (we can
>> discuss why in this context global is the primary focus). We dont judge
>> IGF's performance too well on this count, and our efforts towards IGF
>> improvement will be focused on this aspect on how it can have some to real
>> global Internet policy impact.
>>
>> It is necessary that IGC discusses and figures out what is its real
>> intent/ objective in seeking IGF reform, wherefrom can flow concrete
>> proposals for reform. But lets focus more on larger structural things -
>> things like how can IGF's policy issues related outcomes be shaped and
>> routed to appropriate places and the what kind of funding is appropriate for
>> the IGF. Once we have our views on these critical issues, most other things
>> become so much easier to sort out.
>>
>> My fear is that if we spend too much time too early in looking at the
>> details of what may be by comparison lesser issues, we will lose what may be
>> the last opportunity to make structural reforms in the IGF. We may end up
>> with an IGF with not much recognizable difference from the IGF we have
>> today. And my judgment is that most actors in developing countries are not
>> at all happy for the IGF to continue largely as it is today for the reasons
>> discussed earlier.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110125/635fa402/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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