[governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration

[Marilia Maciel]

I would like to focus on what Bill has mentioned. I believe it is a very
important topic, given the fact that we are close to the CSTD WG meeting and
"outcomes" will be an important topic:


>
> This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome.  As long as developing
> country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU appear to
> have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF is getting
> tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the TC, business, and a
> lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear that an IGF that does more
> than meet and chat once a year would necessarily get leveraged to advance
> that agenda.  And CS proponents of more intensive, structured and "outcome"
> oriented dialogues will remain isolated and frustrated.
>  If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least outside
> the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic.
>

I think we should separate the two topics, IGF improvements and enhanced
cooperation. They are related, but they are different topics. And I
personally think that a more outcome oriented IGF would be beneficial with
our without the implementation of enhanced cooperation.

- regardless of future scenarios, there is currently a growing demand for
the IGF to produce more concrete outcomes, in the format of a mapping of
policy options (many developing countries, part of CS, some EU countries -
and the EU itself - some business, etc) have been in favor of this idea. A
more outcome oriented IGF  would help us increase the relevance of the
forum, to value and make a better use of our rich discussions, to link them
with other organizations and to provide inputs to their policy-making,
etc... A more outcome oriented IGF would be an empowered IGF, and,
consequently, of a "multistakeholder way" of discussing topics related to
IG.

- The IGF cannot be leveraged to become THE enhanced cooperation mechanism,
as some people fear, for several reasons that have been mentioned before. As
far as I understand, no actor or group is proposing to change the IGF so it
would embody EC per se. This is exactly because a "new body" is mentioned,
to make the difference.

- If a new enhanced cooperation mechanism does come into existence (it is
hard to picture that hypothesis, because there is no clear model for it), I
believe that an empowered and more-outcome oriented IGF could be a good way
to exercise more influence on the decisions of this mechanism:

a) If an EC mechanism is implemented with multistakeholder composition, it
would be  very important to have an open forum for dialogue where policy
options, pros, and cons can be debated with the whole community, before they
are fed into such a mechanism. That would "guide" and strengthen the actions
of non-gov participants.

b) If EC is implemented and it is not multistakeholder (or if non-gov actors
have a less important role in it), then clear policy options that have been
"put to the test" of an open debate in the IGF, would gain legitimacy and
resilence and become an important instrument for agenda-setting, for
providing inputs and putting pressure on the mechanism.

Anyway, my point is: in any scenario,  a more outcome oriented IGF, that
would come up with policy options, seems to be a good way forward.

Best wishes,
Marília
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111021/3b55ffa3/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