[governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Sun Mar 27 14:53:46 EDT 2011
Hi all
If we had a very strong chair, more time, and good process, we might
have achieved a result. But we might also not have.
The background issues are very powerful and it was remarkable to see the
cycle at first glance. At the beginning of the Montreux meeting they
dominated.. then a kind of semblance of real work started and continued,
if not very efficiently, until the final afternoon of the second meeting
in Geneva. Then they took over again.
What are the background issues?
- enhanced cooperation
(whether you think it is already happening or not)
- long term institutional set up for internet policy
(whether you believe there should be something at UN level or not.. how
intergovernmental it should be, and fear that business will become
subject to more regulation)
- multi-stakeholder participation in policy-making
(here there is a huge range... from a minority of governments who are
really not comfortable with it, but who were fairly silent during the
meeting, to quite a few who believe in it but who want it to be more
structured, e.g. only private sector associations as opposed to
individual companies and more 'representative' CS participation, to
those who are happy with it as it is now.. and lots of variety in-between)
- greater focus on developing country issues/concerns
(One divider here is that some countries want a platform to talk about
financing, which of course others want to avoid. The developed countries
did not really make much effort in this direction. Non-governmental
entities did.. developing countries, with the exception of South Africa,
mentioned this, but approached it in terms of UN resolutions rather than
practical suggestions.)
- policy focus of the IGF
(this appeared to be a foreground issue... e.g. some of us proposed that
the IGF should focus on key policy questions every year, at least as one
of its agenda setting mechanisms. Others disagreed.. but I think the
reason they did was not because the thought it was a bad idea for the
event, but that it could in some way lead to more international
policy-making, if not at the IGF, somewhere else at global level.)
In other words, other than for the non-governmental stakeholders this
process was not really about IGF improvements, but about the IGF being a
stage for other plays.
It would have taken a very strong and committed chair, and much more
time, to make the common ground that was in the room produce results.
There was a lot of common ground. E.g. on the last day business
presented a proposal for MAG composition and selection which was not
that different from the one that India proposed on the previous day.
But the key would have been for the chair to contain the background
political issues.
Anriette
On 26/03/11 15:26, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> At least to me CSTD is looking...not so competent at the moment.
>
> So Wolfgang's worry about the multistakeholder process being discredited by this bumbling interregnum I'm not sure is main thing.
>
> So main thing is probably ensuring next IGF is substantive and well-run, even in absence of Nitin and Markus; IGC's part is submitting - solid workshop proposals, which we haven't been talking about much while trying to get the cstd thing to amount to something.
>
> Anyway, real choice to me (from cheap seats far from Geneva) is: 1) continue to push back on CSTD/submit alternate report; 2) move on, let CSTD chair's report close this sorry chapter - we can say we told them it was not set up properly, but so what - and spend our time pulling together good workshop proposals for Nairobi.
>
> Right now I am thinking 2) is more important for IGF in long run than 1).
>
> But I look forward to hearing from others that were there what they think priorities should be now.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 9:00 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement
>
> i agree. We are in a very important moment. I am in transit but will
> also share my impressions early this week as well.
>
> On 3/26/11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> It was an unfortunate ending to the process. Why it happened is complex
>> but important to analyse and understand, for the future of IG. Will
>> share a detailed report within a week. parminder
>>
>> On Saturday 26 March 2011 12:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>> As I reported yesterday to this list, the Chair did not try to produce
>>> the report of the WG, and will only transmit his own "neutral" summary,
>>> with compilation as annex or data.
>>>
>>> Several members stayed for a while and chatted what to do next.
>>> Some will try to extend the mandate, ask CSTD Chair for that and
>>> keep on, some gave up. There is possibility for us, IGC, to make
>>> our own version, bit similar to the CS Declaration at WSIS if
>>> we agree.
>>>
>>> Many people said 4 days are not enough to discuss and conclude such
>>> politically complex issue. Some pointed out that waiting till UN GA
>>> resolution passage made everything delayed. We also did not have
>>> online collaboration/communication tool in the course of work.
>>> We were late to propose that. etc etc.
>>>
>>> So now, I would like to hear your comments - what to do? What is best?
>>> Let's think together.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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