[governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?

Wed Mar 30 15:13:21 EDT 2011

Hi Jeanette and all,

Your e-mail is short, and yet, provides so much food for discussion. I envy
your conciseness! :)

Allow me to barge in the debate with Parminder and share some thoughts,
below:

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

>
>
> Actually, I don't want to decide this question. I would prefer to look at
> these issues as a process rather than a binary decision.

There are occasions we do need to make a decision. In the WG, either we
would take by the hand the task of writting the report or we would leave it
to the Secretariat. It is very difficult for me to understand why we should
prefer a Secretariat/chair with no experience on IG matters, with proved
lack of ability, to write such an important document. It was our
responsibility, and we should have worked online, in a smaller but
representative drafting group, right after the Feb meeting in Montreux.

In the context of the IGF, I agree with you that it does not have to be one
OR the other. The chair´s report can live side by side with "outcomes"
extracted from the IGF discussions. But both have different purposes. While
the chair produces a political summary of main highlights (that usually have
no real substance), the collection of outcomes from the discussions should
capture, preserve and do something useful (outreach) with the rich debate
that takes place in IGF.

> We have faced the issue of formal outcome versus no outcome at all over
> several years. Both options have support from strong groups. The way out of
> such constellations is evolution not an either/or constellation.

In my opinion we are not witnessing the same debate taking place over the
years. The debate has changed, in an evolutionary manner, I would say. Three
years ago there were those who would argue for strong recommendation from
the IGF, even binding. Today, this option is out of the table. No
stakeholder group defended anything like that in the WG. In general terms,
we are between "no change" and "outcomes that reflect converging views and
alternative policy options". There is no deliberation involved, as all
different views would be reflected.  This is change and evolution, in my
view. Shouldn´t the ones that want "no outcomes" take a step towards the
point of convergence and equilibrium?

What I would have liked to see is an experimental approach where each annual
> IGF meeting will try out new versions of reporting taking on board the
> experiences from regional and national IGFs.
>

Certainly, that would be interesting, I strongly support that idea as well.
But it does not exclude any of the approaches above.

> In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have
> endorsed such an open process.
>

Honestly, I think that this would be quite little for an expert WG to
propose as the main improvement to the IGF, and this would not address the
concern expressed in the report of the Secretary-general, which served as
base for the convening of the WG in the first place.

>
> jeanette
>
>
> Best wishes,

Marília

>
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
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/20110330/934ed68c/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