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

[Marilia Maciel]

Dear all,

Please find below my personal political assessment of the meeting.
If you prefer to read it online, here is the link:
http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report

*Second meeting of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet
Governance Forum ends with no final report*


Marilia Maciel, Center for Technology and Society of FGV, Brazil


*Warning: This text reflects the author's personal opinions and does not
reflect the position of civil society on the issue.*



*Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful, creative and positive force. But
it never achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it is something that
is constantly under construction by collective effort, with unclenching
fists ands the true desire to build trust*


After two meetings, the working group <http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/> of
the UN Commission of Science and Technology for Development
(CSTD<http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839>)
on the enhancement of IGF failed to prepare its final report. The WG was
successful in "collecting, compiling and reviewing the contributions"
received, but it was not able to make "recommendations” for change, as
envisaged by the mandate. The chair, Frédéric Riehl, will send to the next
meeting of the CSTD his personal report and a compilation of all
contributions. Probably he will ask for an extension of the mandate of the
WG, so the group can complete its assignment.

Now that the meeting is over, it is important that the largest possible
number of participants in the WG makes a *frank and critical analysis* of
what happened, so the obstacles to build consensus can be identified and
dealt with. This is fundamental to achieve better results in the future, if
the mandate is renewed by CSTD.


Three major issues have prevented this small and committed group to reach
the expected goals:


• The *reduced number of meetings* and the mismanagement of the little time
that we had. More meetings and a more efficient methodology could have made
much difference;



• The *existence of conflicting and politically sensitive themes* on the
Internet governance agenda this year, as Enhanced Cooperation (Tunis
Agenda<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>,
paragraph 69) and divergences between the GAC and the ICANN Board, served as
a complicating background. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of WG
members recognized the importance of IGF and genuinely made efforts to
propose constructive improvements, however, the political context made
convergences more difficult to achieve. Most governmental and
nongovernmental actors acted within in the WG according to their broader
political strategies;


• The *high degree of mistrust and poor quality of dialogue between
stakeholder groups*, which occurred during most of the time, being
interspersed by brief genuine attempts at rapprochement that only palely
reminded us of the high level of dialogue we have built over the past five
years with the IGF.


 *I - The lack of dialogue deadly injured the working group*


Perhaps it would be strategically interesting for the non-governmental
actors to put the responsibility for the lack of dialogue entirely on
governments <http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/03/25/cstdwg-collapse>. After all,
collectively we could repeat the mantra that the non-governmental share of
"multistakeholderism” is always constructively in agreement, thus trying to
strengthen our own participation in the Internet governance regime.

However, I believe this view is biased and counterproductive, as it does not
portray the *divisions that existed in the working group* and would not,
therefore, contribute to the overcoming of obstacles.



There were honest divergences based on different views on the IGF and the
current system of Internet governance, both among states and among
non-governmental actors, regarding the main themes on the table, such as the
discussion on results (outcomes) of the IGF, on the composition of the MAG
and on funding.


*Most of these differences were not irreconcilable, if there had been a
frank dialogue and attempt to reach a middle ground*. But that's not what
happened, nor in plenary sessions, or in corridors. In the corridors,
business sector representatives complained of governments, governments
complained about the technical community and we, civil society, complained
of everyone else. After each long day of discussion, each stakeholder group
would split into strategic meetings. The lack of dialogue between the
stakeholder groups rendered the task at hand much more difficult.



*II - India, an actor in the spotlight*


Among all participants, India was the only one to submit a detailed proposal
on how to extract more objective and concrete outcomes from the discussions
at the IGF, *as early as the February meeting* in Montreux. This proposal
was available online<http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/India.pdf>in
March 16. The
text contributed much to the debate (whether or not one agrees with its
substance), because it proposed a chorological and rational approach to the
issue.


There was no other proposal as comprehensive as that one the table in the
beginning of the second meeting, but Indian proposal was never discussed.
Throughout the process, India as an actor (and never their proposals) was
placed on trial. *The country is being criticized on the grounds of being
proactive, presenting their views, and asking for their effective
discussion.*
We, non-governmental actors, always complained about the lack of government
involvement, but we were unable to be open to hear when such true
involvement was present in the WG.


India is a leading advocate of Enhanced Cooperation, and had the
transparency and coherence to re-affirm it at the meeting, even though I
consider that this move was unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive.
But *Indian position in favor of enhanced cooperation does not mean we
should isolate it. *That would be a strategic mistake. We should not push a
government that represents one of the largest democracies in the world, and
has come to defend multi-stakeholder participation in the IGF arena, to
entrench.



Non-governmental actors need to strengthen dialogue and negotiations with
India and some of the other countries that advocate for enhanced
cooperation, if not on the name of understanding, then on our own strategic
benefit.


*III - Submit your proposal and I will submit mine!*


Throughout the second day other proposals popped up. First, on the
composition of the MAG, presented by India, the Technical Community and
Egypt. Then Egypt has made proposals on working methods of the IGF and the
format of the IGF meetings. Civil society also had a procedural proposal on
how to conduct the discussion. However, none of these proposals came to be
analyzed. We lost precious hours on the last day of our meeting, under the
baton of the chair, aimless discussing question after question listed in the
questionnaire, without any conclusions or sense of “closure”.


Basically, *presenting proposals-and-counter-proposals became the main game
between the parties*, to the point where people could not know for sure
who-proposed-what or who-was-against-what. That was a pity, because in fact
there were excellent proposals on the table and some of them showed
considerable degree of convergence between them, which was never identified
during the meeting.


*IV - The "consensus document" that would not fly*


The chair tried to grasp the consensus among the parties on a document which
was handed to us on the second day. Despite the commendable pro-activity, in
my view, also expressed during the meeting, the document could not be
endorsed as the result of the discussions within the working group, mainly
because:


• It expressed principles and practices that are generally accepted and are
commonplace in the IGF. It was shallow and had contradictory parts. Submit
that document to the CSTD would not be fair to the efforts of the members of
the working group because it was *not consistent with the depth and quality
of contributions;*

* *

• The document presented by the chair was extremely conservative regarding
the improvements in the IGF. It had no structural changes but
basically *maintained
the status quo*;


• Therefore, the document *did not seriously represent a proposal for a
consensus among the diverging views*, but translated much more accurately
the aspirations of groups that, for their own legitimate considerations,
want to keep IGF without major changes. This rendered consensus on the text
very difficult.


Each time a change was suggested, the paragraph was placed in brackets. Of
course, *the decision to use brackets can be interpreted in different
manners.* In my view, it was a last attempt to try to work with the text in
hand, which turned out to be unsuccessful, eventually. After every comment,
the chair reminded us that time was running out and pressed us to accept the
text as it was. It was a very counterproductive afternoon in an oppressive
climate.


Acknowledging the fact that there was no final report was very disappointing
for most of us. Once the meeting ended, some people, from all stakeholder
groups approached the chair and the Secretary and asked them to seek the
renewal of the mandate. *That was the last move of the actors of the WG, all
united around a common goal*. Could this translate into greater future
cooperation?


*V - Some take-aways and an invitation*


On the night of our last day in Geneva, something unprecedented (at least
during the process of the WG) happened: members of civil society and the
technical community had dinner together. The conversation was not about
amenities, but remained focused on the WG. Without strategic considerations
or fear, we exchanged views.


Some differences are more difficult to reconcile. Others just seem to be,
because of the efforts it takes to put oneself in others´ shoes. What fear
lies behind the resistance to more concrete results arising from the IGF? What
is the sentiment toward the current composition and functioning of MAG? Do
we "recognize ourselves" in it? What are the reasons and fears of
governments that advocate for enhanced cooperation? Do they all have the
same agenda? None of these issues was discussed openly in recent months by
WG members, and may not have been sufficiently articulated even in the IGF.

*The multistakeholder nature of IGF made us achieve something truly amazing
over the past years*. Stakeholder groups can actually talk to each other and
engage in an open debate on difficult issues, such as critical resources,
access, security and privacy. We left our trenches. During these years, I
witnessed players being genuinely convinced after a fierce debate, and also
amicably "agreeing to disagree" and to continue debating constructively in
the future. Unfortunately, we are stumbling to do the same when we discuss
the infrastructure of our own regime, outside the "friendly" environment of
the IGF. How to deal with that?



Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful, creative and positive force. But
it never achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it is something that
is constantly under construction by collective effort, with unclenching
fists and the true desire to build trust.


After our dinner, I probably understand better the opinions of colleagues in
the technical community. While we do not share some views, I feel more
comfortable and more able to seek converging positions.


*Perhaps we should establish this open and frank dialogue on major political
issues that will be in the agenda of Internet governance this year.* A
workshop? A collective dinner with good wine? Here is an invitation... If
the bill is shared, of course!


-- 
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/20110328/82bc853b/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