[governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation

Wed May 30 06:47:18 EDT 2012

On Wednesday 30 May 2012 03:42 PM, parminder wrote:
> Hi All
>
> As discussed recently with Anriette in Geneva, ITfC welcomes a serious 
> engagement with the enhanced cooperation (EC) issue at the IGF. 

SInce the fervour for an IGF based discussion on enhanced cooperation 
(EC) seems to have formed with some suddenness, and some have even 
expressed surprise as to why was EC never discussed at the IGF, a little 
of recent history may be useful to recollect.

Even at the Nairobi IGF, Marilia's and my organisation had a workshop on 
'Global Internet related public policies – Is there an Institutional 
Gap? 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=182> 
' which for the organisers was rather directly an EC workshop without 
the name, is it not?

Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly 
blocked any reference to EC in MAG discussion, and ITfC proposal for a 
workshop on EC for the 2008 IGF was formally turned down, and we had to 
rope in the Brazilian government to support our proposal whereby finally 
EC became a part of the CIR main session discussion....

While I am at it, I do find it rather interesting to hear rather strong 
and concerted suggestions that the IGF should have working groups (WGs), 
and even issue recommendations, on EC. We are just a few months away 
from the time when the CSTD WG on IGF improvements folded up. At the 
CSTD WG, some of us forcefully advocated for the IGF to form WGs and  to 
come up with recommendations (these demands were also part of India's 
IGF reform proposal), but found little support, and lot of passive 
resistance, including among those who now seem to want such WGs/ recs 
for EC. Maybe an explanation by the concerned can be helpful :) .... 
parminder

> Since a new workshop proposal may be difficult to push in at this 
> stage, one day pre-IGF event should be the best way to do it. I dont 
> think it would work to do a joint thing with GigaNet because GigaNet 
> has an intense, pre-determined program of a rather different nature 
> than the kind of practical and political discussion we are looking to 
> engage in vis a vis EC. However, there are important overlapping 
> actors with interest in both, which problem I am not sure how to deal 
> with. But I think a meeting on EC should be a separate one day thing 
> for it to be effective at all.
>
> Also, if we are indeed to avoid the typical 'exegesis of TA' (Avri) or 
> go beyond discussing the 'Tao of EC' (Bill) we will need to start 
> sorting out and perhaps agree on categories of discussion, at least to 
> the extent possible. This also mean that we should be open to first 
> discuss this issue thoroughly on the IGC list, trying to get our basic 
> categories right, but also to build relatively clear set of 
> alternative positions and institutional models. Such preparation alone 
> will give meat and meaning to a discussion at the IGF.
>
> I think there are two key sides of the EC issue - (1) on tech gov 
> side, the current unilateral oversight of CIRs is the main issue, and 
> some concerns about capture of tech standards bodies an additional 
> issue (2) on the side of social, eco, cultural policies pertaining to 
> the Internet, with global significance, the kind of work OECD's 
> Committee on ICCP does is the main focus, along with other instances 
> of uni- and pluri-lateralism, and also increasing dominance of private 
> regulation....
>
> If anyone want to suggest some other schema, sure, it is most welcome. 
> But we must first develop a basic level of agreement on categories and 
> key issue areas for discussion before we try to seek substantive 
> convergences on the way forward, solutions, appropriate institutional  
> models etc.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 29 May 2012 10:20 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Hi all.. also responding to Avri's prodding of the MAG...
>>
>> I think reopening workshop proposals will be contested, but it is not
>> impossible.
>>
>> If the IGC wants to re-jig its proposal that is also good. I would not
>> let go of talking about IGF improvements however.. it is important.
>> Particularly how we deal with outcomes/messages etc.
>>
>> We can also propose that EC be addressed in the CIR and Taking Stock
>> main sessions by making sure there is mention of it in the next version
>> of the programme paper.
>>
>> Discussion at regional IGFs will also be very valuable, and can feed
>> into Baku, directly or indirectly.
>>
>> But a longer-term strategy would be, in my view, to do the pre-event,
>> have some focus during the IGF, hopefully strengthened by the pre-event,
>> and then make sure we use the open consultation next Feb to get a main
>> session on this topic at the Indonesia IGF.
>>
>> Personally I really think it is time to introduce new main session
>> themes.. and this is one that will not go away.
>>
>> Hopefully by next year we will also be able to focus on specific issues
>> (and not a Tao of EC, quoting Bill) as mentioned by several people on
>> the list and look at concrete options for resolving some of these issues
>> such as those proposed by Parminder and responded to by Milton earlier
>> today.
>>
>> As far as an open forum is concerned.. I doubt that the MAG will be open
>> to changing this format. As Bill pointed out, open forums are for
>> institutions, or events, to share what they do. It was created precisely
>> because some institutions used workshops to share information about
>> (promote) their activities.
>>
>> Lee.. one more thought on and event the day after.. APC has tried on
>> several occasions to have project meetings on the day after the event as
>> we usually bring people to the IGF with funding for a specific project.
>>
>> It has not worked well for us.. we are so tired by then that we are
>> pretty useless at having serious discussion.
>>
>> A pre-event will clash with Giganet and the ministerial, and ISOC. I am
>> hoping we can find a way of collaborating with Giganet as we did last
>> year. We are talking with ISOC to see how they feel about this.
>>
>> As for governments.. ministers do not travel without the people that
>> brief them.  If we can get some of those for even 50% of the duration of
>> our pre-event it will be valuable. And, if the event is planned
>> well-enough we might even get additional government people that were not
>> planning to go to the IGF at all.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29/05/2012 18:28, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>    
>>> Thanks Anriette,
>>>
>>> I thought folks were saying that the pre-event Ministerial precluded governments from participating in an advance EC event.
>>>
>>> My hunch is still a 'coalition of the willing and able' - whether willing because they wish for progress on EC, or fear it - would adjust plans and stick around for the CS-led after-event discussion. Including - some - government reps. Who tend to have more flexibility and ease in adjusting travel arrangements than broke CS types.  But, if the same objective can be served within an Open Session of IGF, as Izumi suggests, that might be even better.
>>>
>>> And as noted, it was just my 2 cents, if not feasible or useful, or if advance event works...never mind.
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org  [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:40 AM
>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation
>>>
>>> Dear Lee
>>>
>>> The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government
>>> participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly
>>> developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with
>>> the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants.
>>>
>>> We had very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened
>>> last year in Nairobi.
>>>
>>> But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a good idea.. to
>>> focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Problem is
>>> also cost though.. and as there are already several other events the day
>>> before, it is more likely people are planning to be there already.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>      
>>>> If I may make a suggestion:
>>>>
>>>> Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule  before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest.
>>>>
>>>> That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups.
>>>>
>>>> We  would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen.
>>>>
>>>> Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.)
>>>>
>>>> The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable.
>>>> And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation.
>>>>
>>>> I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse.
>>>>
>>>> Lee
>>>>
>>>> PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org  [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM
>>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation
>>>>
>>>> In message<463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58
>>>> on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria<avri at acm.org>  writes
>>>>        
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>          
>>>> Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from
>>>> attending should be taken into consideration.
>>>>
>>>> It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same
>>>> process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that
>>>> Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to
>>>> arrange an event to clash with it.
>>>> --
>>>> Roland Perry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120530/f9903aa3/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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