[governance] WGIGF inputs - Outcomes and global policy impact
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Jan 26 03:27:02 EST 2011
Taking Miguel's ideas forward, I think one main, the main, issue in IGF
reform is in terms of its outcomes vis a vis strong impact on global
Internet policies.
Now, if can agree to a few basics here, that makes the ground to move
forward. Can we agree that it is the public agora for global Internet
policies. And in as far as an agora is useful only if there is someone -
in charge of making actual policies listening and following up, the key
issues are -
(1) how to obtain/ frame global policy related outcomes from the IGF,
(2) how to effectively communicate them to the spaces/ forums/ bodies
etc that should and would make actual policies, and
(3) how to keep up an ongoing process of reviewing what has been
happening to the outcomes of the IGF, and how well or not they have been
followed up.
Theoritically all this may be quite well but if we have to be able to
come up with the really needed 'correctives' to the IGF, we need to get
down to practical historical details of what actually has been happening
here.
Like any effective agora, IGF was supposed to take up a sincere debate
on issues of most pressing (and also long term) importance to the
*people*, and come out with some views on these issues, to be then
followed up by policy making levels.
Lets try and look back as to what happened on the ground at the IGFs in
this regard. I am sorry, here some key actors may not get seen in too
good a light, but we should accept it rather than blaming me for
'exclusionary politics' , in the same manner that many developing
country governments did not get seen in good light on the MSism issue so
hotly and forcefully discussed on this list last month.
To take one illustrative example. At WSIS, US's untenable unilateral
political control over some critical internet resources (CIRs) was the
hottest IG issue. Of course it is a legitimate issue. IGF's first job
therefore should have been to openly and sincerely discuss this issue -
and look at why it is untenable, what is the world's opinion on it, how
ITU however may not be the right option, why any UN body may or may not
have its own problems, whether a new world body with UN/ Red Cross type
special host agreements should be floated, or whether the best way
forward was for the US to gradually dilute its controls..........
But what did the IGF do about it. I hope everyone knows, this is recent
history. There were bloody fights to even get the CIR subject on the
agenda for a couple of years. and once it did come to the agenda, some
key 'stakeholders' have used all their resources and craftiness to not
get any sincere discussion going on this subject. (See for instance
Milton's IGP blog on the insipid discussions on the subject at the
Vilnius IGF).
If there has at all been any movement on the front of US control of
ICANN in form of FoC agreement (whose usefulness remains in great doubt)
it had nothing to do with any discussions at the IGF. When in fact IGF
should have been discussing all possible options, and US gov under some
obligations to respond to these.
Now, I dont think the ICANN question is the most imp IG issue, but the
above is an illustrative example. The present structure, and excuse me
to be direct about it, the role of the majority of non-gov stakeholders
is somehow almost always directed towards not getting the most key
public policies issues on the agenda and and having a sincere discussion
from public interest point of view on it. I am ready to hear anyone here
dispute this proposition with proofs. Is it then surprising that most
people seriously bothered about global Internet policy issues have lost
interest in the IGF. There is a Council of Europe conference coming up
in April 2011 on IG, which I see focussed point blank on the most key
global IG issues today. Why have we not been discussing those issues at
the IGF? Who - what actors and what structures - are responsible for
it? We need to be able to place our finger on this structural defect in
the IGF, and try to remedy. And if CS will not discuss these most
important issues openly, who will?
My opinion is, it is not the developing country govs (the easily
villianised) that are responsible for the failures of the IGF, the first
real MS experiment in global governance, it is the 'multi-stakeholders'
themselves (I think the readers can easily identify which stakeholders).
So rather than looking for enemies outsides, lets see how to exorcise
the ghosts within our much vaunted MS system. How to make sure that
non-gov stakeholders go to the table with sincere purpose of making
progress in terms of global Internet policies with the real interest of
the global public, of the people of the world, in mind. Who these public
interest stakeholders can be? How to ensure that the hierarchy between
wider public interest (realizing which is the key objective) and narrow
private interests is ensured in the IGF structure.
Brazilians have an excellent MS system which we can try to use for the
global platforms as well. It is as closely aligned to broader public
interest as it can get I think, though of course there must be areas of
improvement there as well. So while we interrogate state power and all
other things, lets interrogate MSism as well. Our ultimate interest has
to be global public Interest, and not narrow self-serving institutional
forms, which we cling to without introspection about the realtionship of
these forms to the ultimate objective.
In any case , more to the subject, lets see how we can ensure that the
most pressing global IG issues can be picked by the IGF every year,
(making sure that all possibility of resistance to this required
activity is structurally closed) and a sincere focused and outcome
oriented discussion with a view to 'real change' can take place. If we
can have this, outcome structuring wont be difficult. If we dont ensure
this, any kind of new structures wont get any outcomes.
Parminder
Miguel Alcaine 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
--
PK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110126/b1f71685/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list