[governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Tue May 24 18:45:49 EDT 2011
Thanks for the comments Adam and Parminder.
Responses to Adam below:
On 24/05/11 12:05, Adam Peake wrote:
> Anriette, thank you. Very practical.
>
> Just a couple of comments. Section 1. Extending the mandate of the
> CSTD working group. Perhaps a first step is to gain agreement on what
> that mandate includes and does not, the WG's scope. Does the initial
> questionnaire, attached, essentially define the WG's scope? It seems
> to. Insisting on discussing issues that some feel out of scope will only
> lead to disagreement later, waste time. Get the impression some of the
> problems of the first phase came from the chair not controlling the
> discussion better.
Yes..I should in fact have emphasised that more. As they day went along
the meeting became more and more confused, in my opinion, on the mandate
of the WG and the relationship between the WG and the CSTD.
The mandate is defined very broadly by the resolution of the General
Assembly.
The questionnaire reflects the agreement reached by the Working Group at
is first meeting (in February) on the issues to be covered in its report.
Yes, definitely, the whole process could have been managed more effectively.
> Might be worth remembering that for the first five IGF meetings the
> process was often described as an experiment, different things were
> tried, wasn't always expected that they'd be 100% right. IGF's a new
> process so best to accept a measure of experimentation. This acceptance
> of experimentation could be helpful when thinking about the first three
> issues in the questionnaire (if the questionnaire's relevant as I think...)
Yes... if a report is ever written that should be stressed.
>
> You might suggest that when the WG is then unable to reach consensus it
> follow the precedent of WGIG and propose options.
We actually did talk about proposing options... this came up at some
point.. I can't remember quite when. Perhaps it was in one of APC's
multiple submissions actually :) I think at the November 24 meeting.
I should have mentioned that today. If this process does continue, we
should keep that in mind.
>
> Section 2. I don't understand the reasoning behind the timeline, isn't
> a report required before March 2012? (when will ECOSOC/GA need to think
> about the IGF again?)
The IGF has been continued. The General Assembly will review it again in
5 years time.
However, ECOSOC is expecting a report at its next meeting, which is in
June. The Working Group has to "seek, compile and review inputs from all
Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis
Agenda..."
You can see why some people feel it has 'completed' its work.
If it just does a more careful compilation it could finish its work in
less time. You are quite right. I was being careful.. trying to make
sure we don't run out of time again.
But it is interesting to reflect on what this report should really do,
usefully. What would the value of just a compilation be? Would some
more concrete suggestions, and options, for improvement not go a lot
further? There is so much information overload in the MAG and IGF
community already.
At least what some of us were hoping to achieve was a document with
clear, and concrete suggestion on which there was broad consensus.
Other more contentious areas, such as, for example, MAG composition,
could be suggested as options.
But keep in mind that if there are options in the report ECOSOC might
select among them. I think so at least.
But the items make sense. Except perhaps
> involving the MAG which unless formally renewed and repopulated (Catch
> 22?) isn't really in a state to be a partner in a consultation.
I suggested it as a compromise as some governments had proposed that the
MAG can improve itself and the IGF. I agree with you.
Nevertheless, whatever state it is in, the MAG is an important grouping
in the IGF and inviting MAG members to a discussion feels appropriate to me.
> Section 3. Proposed new MAG structure is pragmatic. It would help to
> rebalance the membership without taking away from any other stakeholder
> (which won't happen, no one gives up seats in such situations.)
Yes.. I feel that. Parminder and others have raised different perspectives.
There are different views on what 'constituencies' in the MAG signify.
For me it signifies a group of individuals that are tasked with
organising the IGF based on inputs from the IGF community and the
broader issues, challenges etc. related to internet public policy.
I believe it should be composed of individuals from different
stakeholder groups to make sure that the views, experiences, and
interests reflected in the group are diverse. Added to this should be
geographic, gender balance, and a mix of opinions.
There are other criteria - currently not taken seriously enough in my
view - such as the ability to participate, willingness to work hard,
speak out and argue if needed.
But I don't believe that MAG members should act in the MAG as 'elected
officials' who can only participate based on a mandate from their
constituencies.
I suppose the difference is this:
MAG as an integrated group of individuals who work together as a team,
with the team composed through drawing on different stakeholder groups.
OR
MAG as a group made up of representatives of 4 'sectors' who represent
the interests of those sectors in the MAG and who influences the MAG
process through working in caucuses. More time is spent consulting your
fellow 'stakeholder group' members to ensure you present a common
position, than is spent debating with other stakeholder groups and
coming up with creative proposals for a dynamic IGF.
I prefer the former. It is hard to achieve, but it can be achieved and
it can only work through dialogue, which is what the IGF is all about.
The latter feels quite stunted and counter productive to me, and a step
backwards from the WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance) which was
the model on which the MAG was based.
But I do see Parminder's point.. which relates to trying to formulate
mechanisms for multi-stakeholder participation on a more structured
basis for the long term.
Anriette
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I have not had time to draft a statement on the working group on IGF
>> improvements but I have discussed the matter with lots of people and
>> this morning, on the panel dedicated to this, I thought of making the
>> following points. I will check in with Parminder and Marilia first, but
>> based on what we have been discussing the key points are:
>>
>> 1. It is important for the working group to continue / have its mandate
>> extended:
>> * The IGF needs to address some key weaknesses if it is to be a
>> meaningful forum for dialogue on global internet policy among different
>> stakeholders.
>> * There are enough good proposals for IGF improvements on the table. The
>> working group has received sufficient input from stakeholders,
>> complemented by proposals made by members of the working group.
>> What it did not complete was synthesising proposed changes, and reaching
>> agreement on such changes.
>> * Inspite of some disagreement, there was also substantial common
>> ground, e.g. on the importance of the IGF and its fundamental character
>> as a forum for dialogue as opposed to a policy negotiating forum.
>>
>> 2. Continuation should be linked to a clear decisions on the work
>> procedures and work schedule/timeline of the working group. In
>> particular:
>>
>> * Assigning a chair and a co-chair.
>> * Assistance from the secretariat (who, how, what)
>> * Convening a small drafting group with representatives of all
>> stakeholders (I would propose one person per non-governmental
>> stakeholder group = 3 + 5 government representatives selected by the
>> group keeping regional spread in mind. But there will no doubt be other
>> formulas proposed.)
>> * A phased approach to its work, e.g:
>> - finalise work procedures etc. by 31 July 2011 (ncluding a schedule of
>> meetings)
>> - reassess and cluster all input from stakeholders by 31 August 2011
>> - make use of the Nairobi IGF in September 2011 to have a face to face
>> meeting as a group, and also gather feedback from IGF stakeholders in an
>> open platform
>> - have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
>> November 2011 open consultation
>> - have a consultation with the UNGIS group in November 2011
>> - have a consultation with developing country representatives in Geneva
>> also in November 2011 (as their participation is a key goal of IGF
>> improvements)
>> - compile a draft report by the end of December 2011
>> - gather feedback on the report during January and February 2012
>> - finalise the report by the end of March 2012
>>
>> 3. With regard to the composition of the MAG I have a particular
>> proposal which is that along with 5 CS, 5 business, 5 technical
>> community, a new cluster of 5 is added for the academic and research
>> community.
>>
>> I think this is more likely to succeed that asking for more CS
>> representatives than the other stakeholder groups have.
>>
>> However, this still needs further discussion in this space. I have run
>> it by several people, some like it, but some have concerns which they
>> can share here.
>>
>> Any other suggestions?
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22/05/11 11:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>> Hello Wolfgang and all,
>>>
>>> Anriette has been working on a statetement from CS supporting the
>>> continuation of the CSTD WG. IGF improvements and WSIS review will be
>>> discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news after that. CS is
>>> having an
>>> informal dinner with representatives from the technical community and
>>> the business sector on Monday night to chat about CSTD. I am really
>>> happy that we will have the opportunity to do it.
>>>
>>> So far, as long as we know, the only one to support extintion of the WG
>>> is the United States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. You can
>>> access it here:http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ (on the right side)
>>>
>>> The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow morning, before the
>>> conference, to talk about proposals of resolutions. Europe will be
>>> proposing one resolution about IGF improvement, but we dont know its
>>> exact content. I heard their goal is not to let discussions in WG go
>>> completely to waste. Europe has been supportive, and they (Hungary)
>>> backed me up when I complained about lack of executive coordinator and
>>> chair for the IGF process, during WSIS tacking stocks session.
>>>
>>> I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS representative, because
>>> my organization does not have ECOSOC status. I will be there invited by
>>> the Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about my possibility to
>>> intervene. But Anriette will be there as APC, Katitza will be observing
>>> as EFF and we heard Parminder will be here as well, but not sure.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Marília
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
>>> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Wolfgang:
>>>
>>> I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are
>>> our representative there.
>>>
>>> Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Katitza,
>>>
>>> any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting? And who
>>> nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming
>>> UNCSTD meeting?
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> im Auftrag von Katitza
>>> Rodriguez
>>> Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19 <tel:21.05.2011%2019>:01
>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Katitza Rodriguez
>>> Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva
>>> worked
>>> extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG
>>> meeting.
>>> Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette
>>> Esterhuysen
>>> and Joy
>>> Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please
>>> apologize
>>> me if I forgot of anyone else.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>>>
>>> I want to inform civil society IGC members that only
>>> four civil
>>> society MAG members were able to attend the last Open
>>> Consultation and
>>> MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria
>>> Betancourt,
>>> Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>> >
>>> It is important to understand that four civil society MAG
>>> members are
>>> not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor
>>> and
>>> shape
>>> "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC,
>>> we have
>>> requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>>> understanding of the current list of civil society MAG
>>> members, and
>>> the need to fill out those civil society slots in the
>>> MAG so
>>> we can
>>> keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>>>
>>> In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4
>>> sessions. In
>>> the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other
>>> sessions (which
>>> will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil
>>> society voice
>>> is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP
>>> session. If
>>> you want to send me a "private message" about the issues
>>> that you
>>> consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an
>>> email to
>>> katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org> Our main input for
>>> discussion is the February Open
>>> Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders)
>>> provided
>>> valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that
>>> those
>>> suggestions are included.
>>>
>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this
>>> list is open
>>> to other stakeholders including public authorities,
>>> government
>>> officials, technical community, and business sector
>>> representatives.
>>> Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have
>>> a very
>>> difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any
>>> public
>>> strategy that we can share here, can always harm our
>>> collective
>>> efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance
>>> is a big
>>> problem and can harm our work.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for
>>> IGC-only
>>> members that is close to their members. In that way, civil
>>> society MAG
>>> members will be able to provide a better report after the
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> International Rights Director
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>> katitza at datos-personales.org
>>> <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
>>>
>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>> freedom of speech since 1990
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> International Rights Director
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>> katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>>> (personal email)
>>>
>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>> freedom of speech since 1990
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto: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
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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