AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Jan 26 09:33:52 EST 2011
Marilia
Largely agree with what you say. Two comments:
Yes, there is a a lot of difference between the context of the Eurodig
and the IGF. However, the issue is not just cultural, there is a large
global political economy component to it as well.
As for MAG's new role, IT for Change's inputs to the process ahve always
maintained that for the IGF to be effective MAG has to be effective and
be much more than a program committee that it is at present. The MAG is
the only structurally defined aspect or part of the IGF; for most of the
proposed substantive activities of the IGF, it is the MAG which will
have to play a key role. Whether it is choosing the right topics, doing
the necessary in depth background work, structuring the discussion at
IGF in meaningful ways, taking up post IGF work to develop IGF outcomes
base don the IGF discussions in any tangible shape, or , as you mention,
communicating the outcomes to the relevant bodies and reviewing what
happened subsequently.
parminder
Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Parminder and all,
>
>
> Another difference between EuroDIG and the IGF is scale. In EuroDIG we
> are talking about 2 days, with the maximum of 3 sessions in parallel.
> IGF schedule is much heavier, impossible to grasp completely and much
> more difficult to "summarize".
>
> An additional difference is cultural convergence. EuroDIG is a forum
> for Europeans. There is a common cultural background and world view
> that makes it easier to begin discussions based on common assumptions.
> In IGF we need to "culturally negotiate" our understanding of things.
> Quite harder.
>
> This is to say that even though summaries of discussions of the
> sessions (ex: people said this, other people said that) is necessary
> to map policy options, it might not be enough to produce something
> that is fit for policy-making. And usually there is no time to
> transform rough material into material that is fit for policy-making
> during wrap-up workshops or main session. These workshops and main
> sessions are vital to identify intersections among themes (ex:
> intersections between the discussion of a workshop on NN and another
> in A2K, for instance). But we need more time and more careful
> discussion to transform these summaries into something that can serve
> as input for policy. This is the reason why a renewed MAG, with
> broader mandate can make the difference. Let me reproduce part of an
> e-mail I sent months ago, in the context of the discussion about EC:
>
> *
> *
>
> *The new role of the MAG*
> It seems hard to understand that we disregard in our proposal the MAG,
> multistakeholder body that already exists. Is it a black box? Then,
> let’s advocate for its change, to make it transparent. Now is the
> right time to do it, with the CSTD WG process.
>
> If the legitimacy of the MAG is reinforced and true conditions for
> equal participation among stakeholders is achieved, then the role of
> the MAG could be changed and it could become a body whose main
> competence is to _propose action lines regarding policies and
> regulation_, based on the input received from the IGF. While the IGF
> would be the place to agenda-setting and issue-shaping, the group
> would be the place to policy design. If any stakeholder group (a group
> of developed countries, for instance) wants to propose a new policy,
> this group would need to launch the idea at the IGF (valuing this
> space). If it gathers support (after being put to the test of debate
> in the IGF), then it will reach the multistakeholder group, where
> policy-shaping would take place.
>
> The MAG would also be responsible to _foster coordination_ with other
> organizations on the IG constellation, also guided by the discussions
> in the IGF. So MAG could also have a role in the two additional tasks
> Parminder mentioned:
>
> "(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".
>
>
> Of course, this new role of the MAG should be complemented with the
> establishment of links between the MAG and other bodies with actual
> decision-making power such as UN bodies and maybe an EC mechanism, if
> it exists in the future.
>
>
> Jeremy´s suggestion ("MAG needs to be split up into stakeholder
> councils") is very interesting and should be aggregated to this
> brainstorm.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Marília
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> OK, as I said in the other emails, the 'outcomes' issue is the
> most important one, and we must take the bull by the horns. My
> attempt at that:
>
> The basic issue remains that there must be enough political will,
> and the overall control in the hands of those who can guide the
> group in expressing the political will of the people rather than
> squandering it. This will require the MAG and the MAG chair to be
> very very conscious of this main concern and work single-mindedly
> for it. There has to be a way to over come efforts at process and
> substance obfuscation as a way of retarding progress. I think such
> a focus forthe MAG is paramount. Nothing will succeed without it.
>
> Given that political will and focus, semantics is not important.
> We know it wont be an IGF resolution. We can call it IGF's report
> on 'so and so issue' or we can call it messages as in Eurodig.
> However, too much of 'one said this and other said that' would not
> work. We need to be able to close the gaps at least in some key
> areas, and evne if differences remain - they can, for instance, be
> put into 2 or ore clear models (as WGIG did about oversight
> models). This still gives the outside policy makers something to
> work on, which as I said is the real objective on which we need to
> keep focused.
>
> Now if we can get things like the following from Eurodig's
> 'Messages from Madrid' that is great
>
> *Principles of “network neutrality” and policies for an open
> Internet *
>
> The key principles underlying the “open Internet” or “network
> neutrality” evolve around: (i) no discrimination of traffic
> based on sender or receiver; (ii) unrestricted user choice and
> access and use of content, applications and services by
> consumers – businesses – citizens; (iii) appropriate,
> reasonable and non-discriminatory traffic
> management............ (read more in the 'messages from
> madrid' doc)
>
> There are real thing that came out of the Eurodig that got
> followed up, for instance, a expert group on cross border issues,
> that Wolfgang now leads, along with some clues on what kind of
> work it should take up.
>
> All such outcomes are rather fine. So we need to see why in 5
> years the IGF has not even moved towards the direction of any such
> outcomes, when Eurodig has been able to do it in its first year.
> We need to see where did the present structure fail in this job,
> and accordingly look at areas which therefore need change/
> improvements.
>
> And of course there are contextual differences. One I can see is
> that with Eurodig there was a clear inter-gov body the CoE which
> could build on Eurodig's outcomes and within a year come out with
> what appears to quite good detailed experts report on 'cross
> border issues in IG' which I understand would now receive
> political attention. We dont have any such global body at present,
> and while this makes the case for new institutional developments
> around the 'enhanced cooperaiton' peg (which new institution
> should be even more multi-stakeholder than the CoE ones), we may
> need at present for the IGF to spawn off its own smaller
> committees to give more detailed reports building on the general
> 'IGF report on so or so...' or is people prefer 'messages from the
> IGF'.
>
> All this is not only plausible, but badly and urgently required.
> There is no IGF improvements without addressing this issue.
>
> "The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions." (Wolfgang)
>
>
> No, we are not looking at such a huge diversity of messages.
> Developing structures or non-structures towards such a thing must
> be guarded against. We could as well take a twitter poll on 100
> issues. We are looking at rather more substantial political
> convergences. We need them if we have to live together as one
> world, and be just and fair to all. Parminder
>
> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> with regard to "outcomes" the problem is whether the "outcome" has to be a "negotiated text" where everybody agrees, or a "non-negotiated text" in form of a summary from a recognized (and respected) source as "the chair", a "rapporteur", the "secretariat" or something else. I made the proposal already in a 2007 MAG meeting to have non-negotiated "messages" (two or three from each workshop, formulated by the chair or the rapporteur of the workshops) instead of negotiated "recommendations". And the Brazilian host considered it seriously to have instead of a (negotiated) "IGF Declaration from Rio" a document titled "IGF Messages from Rio". However, nothing worked and we got only the "Chair´s summary" and the book (the summarized proceedings) as outcome from the Rio meeting (and the subsequent IGFs).
>>
>> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions.
>>
>> It works quite well in EURODIG.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org> im Auftrag von Roland Perry
>> Gesendet: Mi 26.01.2011 11:53
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations
>>
>>
>>
>> In message <4D3FDBCD.7080102 at itforchange.net> <mailto:4D3FDBCD.7080102 at itforchange.net>, at 14:01:09 on Wed, 26
>> Jan 2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>> >>Amend ECOSOC res 2007/8 to require the IGF Secretariat to submit
>> >>directly its respective report to the CSTD Secretariat, as it is the
>> >>case already explicitly for GAID. This will be in addition of what
>> >>DESA includes in its respective report, as GAID and IGF are part of
>> >>DESA.
>>
>>
>>> Agreed. Though it should not merely be a copy of the present kind of
>>> report that goes to the DESA. IT should be substantive, laying out the
>>> key public policy issues chosen were discussions, the outcomes, and
>>> proposed follow ups.
>>>
>> Outcomes?
>>
>> Something more substantial than "we have to discuss this again, because
>> we ran out of time when the interpreters needed their lunch break" I
>> presume.
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
--
PK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110126/84499c36/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