[governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Mar 29 14:27:48 EDT 2011
Dear All
I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what I
think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements.
"I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue.""
Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be constructed
here. It is a predictable script with predictable villains - of course,
those developing countries, who else. A UN meeting on any IG issue
perhaps need not even happen for this 'result' and 'analysis' of it to
be produced :) . I keep hoping however that we would open our minds to
look beyond this predictable response that we seem to remain stuck in.
Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already
predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note that
developing countries had been seeking early and greater number of
meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was not
heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted this WG
to fail as it finally did?
Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if it,
some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of that
meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing countries wanted
a multistakeholder drafting group to work between the two meetings to
come up with a draft with which the second meeting could start. Everyone
knew that was the only way to produce a report within the 2 days of the
WG meeting that were left when the group reassembled. A
multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed with about the same ratio
as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5 non gov members. However, on
civil society's prompting some developing countries (lead here by
Brazil) proposed that civil society can have 3 members instead of the
originally proposed one becuase they represent greater diversity of
views, with one member of business, one of tech comminuty etc. Business
and tech community, and then some major devloping countries, said a
clear no to this proposal to expanded civil society membership of the
proposed drafting group.
Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a
drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech
community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting
this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I will
stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society, because this
question is also important in terms of the most central substantive
issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key point on which
disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG failed to prepare
any recs.
Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder working
group based processes to produce key substantive documents in the IG
space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an activity?
(If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we
are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding
substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and
specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.)
In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of
the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an
incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other
(developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder drafting
group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing it. No one
responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to this paradox.
Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real
differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think
with some deft managing we could still have come out with something
substantial, but on that later.)
There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes, MAG
selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding. Among
these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this issue could
have been agreed upon we would have got a very good report, and that
would really have been a substantial step forward for the IGF, and for
global IG. Without looking throughly at what happened around this
central issue we cannot get the right picture of the WG proceedings.
Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal (
enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was
not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the real
issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we start
assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us, each of us,
and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this proposal is fine
by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the right way to go
ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be blamed for WG failure,
not those who proposed it, and those who supported it.
There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on the
table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times. I
specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the way
to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of producing
what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain how this process
would be different from the Chairman's summary, and a shorter bulletted
Chairman's summary, already being prepared at present. I never got a
clear reply, which if it was put on table would have constituted a
specific outcomes related proposal.
Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference
across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary
proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and
the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the
'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting
the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with
secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of
multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder
working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And
depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the
main contestation at the WG we are on. And then perhaps, if we really
must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to
suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose
planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard
work we could have got some good results from the WG.
It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG
and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a
multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff
on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with
relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an
IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This
process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for
IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing
background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the
IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder
workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF
before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi
stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on
key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy
paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my
understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the
only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making.
And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's
proposal.
Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who
opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang
when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on
'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by
this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.
I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more
comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative
multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear
political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the
moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat
at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then
change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or
alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more
clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put
there by a particular country whose political positions we generally
agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose
political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical,
put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation
will greatly help make clear what I am driving at.
I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues
that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF
funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's
and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was
the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to
determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting.
Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of
all be informed by this issue.
Parminder
On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
>
> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue."
>
> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction.
>
> What are the options now for civil society?
>
> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
>
> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.
>
> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110329/19eb4cbe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: India's IGF outcomes proposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 62700 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110329/19eb4cbe/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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