AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi Parminder
 
I offered TWO options to explain the outcome of the Geneva meeting: a. "planned failure" and b. "stumbling forward". To be frank I do NOT believe in the many conspiracy theories. I always remembered what Tara Frankel a well respected law professor in the 1990s said when she described Internet Governance as a process of "meddling through". This is a journey into unknown terriotory and you know my argument which I used already in the High Level Panel in the 1st WSIS in Geneva, December 2003, when I argued in favour of a new 21st century diplomacy because it will be impossible to settle the new emerging (Internet) issues with the political and diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. What we need is more creativity and not new zero-sum-games. 
 
Insofar I am not too much frustrated with regard to the Geneva meeting. I see the good will of both (or nearly all) sides. But I see also the unability to find a common language and to look for the "doable things". If there would have been more time (as we had in WGIG), a number of misunderstandings could have been removed from the table so that only the real controversial issues remain on the table which need more (time consuming) in depth delibarations. With other words, for me the Geneva March 2011 meeting is another element in the long chain of "stumbling forward" events. 
 
As you and others explained at length there was nobody who really challenged the usefulness of the multistakeholder dialogue. This is good and brings us another small step forward. This is much better than the input which came from the government of the Peoples Republic of China which ignores in its one page statement both in the review section as well as in the reform section the word "multistakeholder". 
 
There are different ideas with reagrd to outcome, MAG and secretariat/funding. This is rather natural. If we first identify this as the three main open issues and seperate them from each other (so that we can handle it one by one) I see a chance to find a rough consensus based on good will. There is another controversial issue which is the interlikage of the IGF in the global Internet Governance ecosystem (the missing intergovernmental plattform, embedded into the multistakeholder environment, the need for "basic principles", the formal/informal interlinkage with the ICANN/GAC/ALAC mechanism). But this is a different story 
 
I just want to say something here to outcomes. Parminder, you create a binary situation in presenting this as an "either secretariat or multistakeholder drafting group problem".  You can be assured that in such a constellation I am in favour of a multistakeholder drafting group, if this is needed. But my proposal for "messages" goes beyond this "either or" of traditional text producing practices and introduces an innovative decentralized drafting mechanism, where the individual rapporteurs of the various sessions produce one to three (short) messages from their workshops/plenaries which than will be compiled (not redrafted) in the final "IGF Messages from Nairobi" etc. Such a decentralized drafting avoids capture by one group, bypasses endless wordsmithing battles around kommas and brackets and guarantees diversity. What you need, if you take this road, are clear guidelines for the rapporteurs and a procedure for the selection of the rapporteurs. This could be a task for a renewed MAG. The risk of a multistakeholder drafting group is that you just delegate the (sometimes ideologized) battle to a smaller circle with the risk that also this group can be blocked, paralyzed by infighting etc. 
 
To decentralize drafting for an IGF outcome, where recommendations, opinions, messages etc. do not have a binding nature but should serve as a source of inspiration, should give orientation and guidance for further actions is probably better than to open a new (smaller) battlefield which by nature would be exclusive and not inclusive. 
 
But lets continue the debate.
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 29.03.2011 20:27
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?


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
	
	

____________________________________________________________
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