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

Mon Oct 31 03:22:52 EDT 2011

Hi Marilia

On Oct 30, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> Dear Bill,
> 
> This linkage you said that the indians have made between the two processes (EC and IGF improvements) is not at all new.

Right, as I said, goes back to 2004, and has loomed in the background shaping perceptions and dynamics ever since.  Getting more explicit and more problematic now.

> The relation between the processes have been largely discussed in IGF workshops this year and has been mentioned in CSTD WG before. Evidently, an outcome oriented IGF would be a good way to feed discussions into any other organizations/bodies, including a mechanism of EC, if it comes into existance.If an EC mechanism is created, I would never want it to disregard IGF's inputs, would you?

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.
> 
> My point on my last message was that in any given scenario, and regardless of what happens to the EC proposal, having a more outcome oriented IGF is a good thing. If you disagree with that, could you comment on how outcomes could be negative on the 3 scenarios I mentioned?

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.  
> 
> 
> Another point: to affirm, as you did, that indian proposal tabled on the GA killed the possibility of a more outcome-oriented IGF in CSTD WG is not logical. EC does not derive from a more outcome oriented IGF. EC may happen without any improvements to the IGF (which would be the worst scenario ever, in my opinion). So both processes are connected, but, I repeat, they are different processes.

It is very logical.  You never seem to take into account how the stakeholders and governments that don't agree with you perceive things.  You can insist all you want that there's no connection and outcome-oriented improvements should happen irrespective of the EC discussion, but they've been saying for years they see that as linked to the intergovernmental end game, and they act accordingly.  And now that India's formally linked its two proposals, they have all the more reason to frustrate you on the IGF piece.
> 
> If actors start to block discussions here in geneva because they did not like indian proposal in the GA, I am sorry, but they are the ones that will be hampering improvements, and they are the ones that will be killing the future of the IGF.

Strongly disagree. They are reacting to facts on the ground.  Take the intergovernmental EC proposal off the table and discussions of an improved IGF should get easier because it's not threatening.  Keep it on the table, nothing will move.  It'd be helpful if you could keep that in mind going forward when you're sending us emails complaining they won't agree to your agenda.  

I have a suggestion for you.  Sit down and talk with said actors about how they see the linkages and why they resist the sort of proposals India has put forward.
> 
> I have just arrived and I am really tired, but hope this message is understandable ;)

No worries, I get where you're coming from.
> 
> Hope to have (good) news tomorrow.

Indeed.

Cheers,

Bill
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:16 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi Marilia
> 
> Since you and our other reps will soon be in Geneva for the WGIGF meeting, it seems timely to circle back to this thread.
> 
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I wish it were otherwise, but they have been very closely related since CS first started advocating an IGF in 2004 and will be more so going forward. We were told by several people here that nobody should be concerned about the Rio proposal because it was just a draft and of course the 3 governments would be fully taking on board the opposition voiced by virtually everyone who spoke to it in the Nairobi CIR session.   I therefore asked why the Tshwane Declaration didn't just come out and take the UN oversight body concept off the table if that was true.  Now we have the answer—it wasn't.  
> 
> Irrespective of any stakeholder views, the Indian government has ploughed ahead and formally proposed almost precisely what the "just a draft" said (actually it's worse—the Indian language adds to the list of functions, "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies"…this to be done by 50 governments that meets for two weeks a year for ten six hour days).  And they did this in a purely intergovernmental setting where stakeholder views are duly ignored.  One might add that I asked the indian representative twice on stage whether/when a proposal might go to the GA and got evasive answers.  Since this was done a couple weeks after Nairobi, one has to assume that they'd already decided and just weren't going to say it in a multistakeholder setting where people might raise questions, which strikes me as rather indicative of how we can expect all this to be handled going forward.
> 
> So now we have been allowed to see the Indian proposal, and it says inter alia that "An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF."   So let's no longer pretend that the two issues can be viewed separately.  The Indian proposal for IGF improvements that you and some others have championed here has been directly linked to the establishment of a UN body for enhanced cooperation by the Indian government.   To me this is a pity, because the former does have some good ideas that if decoupled from an intergovernmental end game on EC would have made the IGF more useful and closer to what some of us hoped for back in 2004.  But the linkage has been spelled out, and I strongly suspect the Indian IGF improvement proposals are now dead on arrival.  Why would all the actors that oppose intergovernmental control support IGF proposals that are designed to enable IGF to feed into an intergovernmental control mechanism?  India has given away the game that these actors always insisted was really being played behind the scenes.
> 
> We are probably now in for an unproductive WGIGF process.  I suspect that for the next half year we'll be getting frustrated emails from you and our other reps about how the TC, business, and non-G77/China governments are blocking this or that proposal for more structured dialogues, working groups, outputs, etc.  It is unclear that CS will be able to articulate some sort of third way that would make the IGF more than an annual chat fest without this being viewed as part of a larger and more important battle, especially when some of our representatives are closely identified with the intergovernmental agenda.  At the moment i'm not too hopeful, but would be interested to hear discussion of ways in which this could be done.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/d135299d/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