[governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?

[McTim]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:27 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  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.
>

He said governments, not developing country governments.


<snip>


> 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?
>


Why must it be either/or?  That is no the way IG has traditionally been
done, so I don't see why we should encourage it as the way forward for IG
discussions.



>
> (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.)
>

I reject the validity of any WG that I cannot be a part of and contribute to
in an open and transparent way..  I don't need nor do I want intermediaries
representing me.



>
> 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.
>

Yes, we don't have to agree to their rules about who can participate and how
they can do so.



>
>
> 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.
>

I don't think it is the way forward because it is limited to MAG members and
some "experts".



>  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.
>
> <snip>

>
> 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.
>


If you want to have an influence on actual policy, you must engage in the
policy making bodies.




>  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
>

Can you explain how they are accountable to me?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110329/39771a71/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