[governance] Re: Indian proposal => "IGF improvements"

[Marilia Maciel]

Hi Bill,

It is getting late here, so I will take only 2 of your points and come back
on the others later.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:22 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

>
> If an EC mechanism is created, I would never want it to disregard IGF's
> inputs, would you?
>
>
> BILL: I would not want an intergovernmental EC mechanism to be created,
> therefore I would not want the IGF restructured for the purpose of
> providing inputs into it.  But IGF discussions have already influenced
> other sphere, e.g. the OECD's decision to allow TC and CS participation,
> some of ICANN's internal reforms, etc.
>

MARILIA: The discussion about improvements with respect to outcomes is
based on the feeling shared by many actors that the rich discussions that
take place in the IGF have not been captured in a way that: a) can serve as
input in global policy making; b) can be communicated to other bodies; c)
can create a track of IGF discussions, so we can see improvements from year
to year. One proposal advanced by many of us in CS is that more concrete
outcomes should capture convergences and divergent policy options, as
explained in detail before. This improvement would be made after years of
discussion and after many people in IGF have made claims for more concrete
outcomes. It would not be made with the purpose to provide inputs into an
non-existant EC mechanism.

>
> BILL: I have been for a more outcome oriented IGF since before there was
> an IGF.  But if there is an intergovernmental EC mechanism soaking up all
> the attention of governments and generating an untold number of
> irresolvable conflicts, I agree with Milton that IGF could end up
> marginalized.  Many G77 governments have repeatedly demonstrated that they
> don't particularly care about having a space to talk to stakeholders and
> engage in collective learning.  What they want is what's been proposed, an
> UNCTAD of the Internet that nominally can facilitate treaty negotiations
> and GA resolutions.  The model here would not look like OECD deliberations.
>  It'd be more like the CSTD.
>

MARILIA: Well, then you agree that more concrete outcomes are the way to
go, you just don't think it is strategically interesting to move on that
direction. So, if got your point, if there is no EC, outcomes would be
good. But if EC comes into existence, then  outcomes from IGF would become
a bad thing? I dont understand why.
In addition, if the IGF continues for more 5 years without providing more
concrete outcomes, do you really think that it will remain relevant? That
people and organizations who are asking for concrete outcomes will continue
attending happily? That governments will still be there (including western
governments?) Countries who have funding maybe will send one or two low
level officials. But most likely countries will resort to their established
regional platforms. We are currently discussing the meeting in UK. That may
become more frequent. And without a stronger IGF, that sends messaged,
there is little that can be done to prevent that trend, or to call
attention to more legitimately debated policy options.

Best,
Marília



-- 
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/20111031/75368d07/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