[governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Tue May 29 07:40:58 EDT 2012
Hi,
I am hoping that the MAG members look at the CSTD meeting and the aftereffects and decides, that this is needed and thus do something.
The workshops the MAG had to choose between where the ones that the previous lame duck MAG invited. the main sessions are the ones that same MAG defined. At that point there was a blindness as to whether EC could be discussed. Now, after the CSTD show that blindness should be lifting. Now there is hopefully a different view. Beleive me, had they asked for workshops on EC, there would have been some.
The MAG is in charge. It can do what it thinks is right. And it can define any meeting or type of meeting it thinks will move things forward.
I believe that the IGF12 will be remiss if it does not have a major session on EC and how the IGF can move the topic forward.
As a civil society particpant, I am aksing the civil society MAG members whether you think this is something that should happen? If not, why not? I guess you explained why you think it is a bad idea.
If, however, other MAG members think it is something that does make sense, then why not bring it up and help it happen?
BTW, I see no problem with the pre-session competing with Giganet. There are people enough for both things. I think the crowd that cares about EC is very different than the crowd that cares about academic papers on IG. And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand in the way of anything.
avri
On 29 May 2012, at 04:16, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> On May 28, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Dear MAG member,
>>
>> why no support for at least a workshop at IGF12?
>
> No such workshop was proposed, so there was no occasion for MAG members to express support for one. Are you suggesting that although the application window is long closed and notices to proposers have gone out, we should circle back and propose one ourselves and demand that the MAG exceptionally consider it?
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 28 May 2012, at 11:12, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>
>>> Yes... let's do the pre-event in Baku. APC is willing to lead on this
>>> but we are talking to others to co-convene.
>
> As discussed in Geneva, I agree there should be a pre-event (more substantial and high profile than a workshop) organized by the three stakeholder groups and any governments that would also support an peer-level multistakeholder dialogue in which Governments don't get to hog 85% of the airtime making prepared speeches as happened at the CSTD event (and would happen in any intergovernmental-based working group, council, committee, task force, etc). Structured collective discussion, preferably informed by a brief document that maps out top-level themes and some specific discussion questions/options under each. Ideally, we could try to quickly get beyond more lengthy deconstructions of The Tao of the Tunis Agenda and the search for The One True Meaning of EC and focus on such items as a) in what specific issue areas do people believe something important is not being done or is being done badly, and b) what institutional mechanisms if any (centralized/decentralized, omnibus/issue-specific, etc) or enhancements to extant arrangements might be useful in helping the international community to address said problems.
>
> Timing is a real problem. Unless we're prepared to ask people to add an extra day to their trip, this would have to be on Monday 5th, competing not only with GigaNet, ISOC, etc, but also the Ministerial, which the Government reps will inevitably feel compelled to attend if able. If we can't draw them into a discussion with the stakeholders, the exercise would be of considerably less value than one might hope. We'd need to decide what to do on this soon, before people start making plane reservations.
>
>>>
>>> And then let's get the 2013 IGF to feature various aspects of EC much
>>> more prominently. IGF 2013 will be hosted in a developing country
>>> (Indonesia) and it is therefore likely to have far greater developing
>>> country government participation (at least from Asian and African
>>> countries).
>>>
>>> Also by then quite a lot would have happened at CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA level
>>> (and WCIT) as well as inside some of the existing institutions. E.g. the
>>> assessments, report cards, mapping and other suggestions made on the
>>> 18th of May.
>
> The main session on CIR is likely to devote a good chunk of time to WCIT. Whether this could be broadened to include the EC discussion per se, and whether that'd even be advisable given that 'public policy responsibilities' are broader than CIR i.e. usage-related issues, is unclear. Perhaps some of this could fit under Taking Stock, which has been rather substantially reconfigured this year to look at the wider environment, e.g. the various principles and frameworks proposals…?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/05/2012 16:37, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Personally I think we need to keep pushing for something during IGF2012.
>>>>
>>>> Let's go into WCIT with the IGF having made room for the problem and having started the process. We have 5 months yet before the meeting, things can't possibly be set in stone at this point. We have a new MAG that was forced to accept a program they were not completely comfortable with, they are entitled to still be thinking about how to make IGF12 as valuable as they possibly can. (Not that I have the faintest idea of whether they would be interested in taking such action)
>>>>
>>>> And whether we can get it into the IGF12 agenda, which I think its the optimal solution, or not, I think the idea that Anriette mentioned on the list earlier:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Avri
>>>>>
>>>>> We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning a
>>>>> pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various
>>>>> partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to
>>>>> prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they might
>>>>> have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of
>>>>> the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps since 71 puts the responsibility on the relevant organizations (which I take to mean the mangers of critical Internet resources) to get this underway: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders", it won't be to hard to find a set of good sponsors for such an event.
>>>>
>>>> But to be clear. I would like to see both a full day pre-event discussion, and for that event to bring a report (dare i say recommendations?) to the IGF in a workshop arranged for discussion of EC and the IGF.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28 May 2012, at 10:18, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anriette, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't make sense to me, but nevermind :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> So what next? Enhanced cooperation on the agenda of IGF 2013? I'd
>>>>> support that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Adam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We actually checked with one of the authors recently... and she said
>>>>>> that was exactly what she remembers intending the text to say (Avri's
>>>>>> interpretation).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/05/2012 15:35, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>>>>> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't think the document was
>>>>>>> drafted with that in mind, those last hours were a mess and this was the
>>>>>>> text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the only one on the room
>>>>>>> and my memory is terrible!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended to be linked there
>>>>>>> would be text saying so, there would be some connecting language
>>>>>>> (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF would include a reference
>>>>>>> to enhanced cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. Wish I could
>>>>>>> remember if this was discussed in Tunis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And also Nitin decided it for us. Both paragraphs ask the secretary
>>>>>>> general to do something, Nitin as the special advisor for Internet
>>>>>>> governance said separate and I guess that's him speaking for the SG. So
>>>>>>> if they are to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy that does it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the
>>>>>>>>>> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not
>>>>>>>>>> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex
>>>>>>>>>> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on
>>>>>>>>>> which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but
>>>>>>>>> it bears repeating often.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually
>>>>>>>>> places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum.
>>>>>>>>> As I read the Tunis Agenda text,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense,
>>>>>>>>> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments,
>>>>>>>>> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation
>>>>>>>>> - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and
>>>>>>>>> creation of principles,
>>>>>>>>> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on
>>>>>>>>> enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and
>>>>>>>>> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a
>>>>>>>>> forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out
>>>>>>>>> more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the
>>>>>>>>> forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called
>>>>>>>>> for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the
>>>>>>>>> context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process:
>>>>>>>>> from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation
>>>>>>>>> involving all stakeholders,"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> 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.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/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.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/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.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/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.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/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.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/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.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/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