[governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement

Mon Mar 28 06:10:40 EDT 2011

Anriette,

you wrote :

T*here 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.*
*presented a proposal for MAG composition and selection which was not*
*that different from the one that India proposed on the previous day.*

Can you elaborate a bit on the different elements ?

Best

Bertrand

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110328/2e085ca6/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