[governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation

Wed May 30 09:08:48 EDT 2012

Sorry to jump in late, it has been a crazy week...

I would like to support the proposal of a one day pre-event, for several
reasons already mentioned, but also because I think visibility is crucial,
and we would not have it if we organize a workshop or open forum.

Regardless of our exegesis about the Tunis Agenda, the exact articulation
between the IGF and enhanced cooperation is still to be defined. Before EC
was taken off the agenda, some of us in the CSTD WG have strongly argued
that the IGF needs to be formally connected to mechanism of EC, so that the
multistakeholder community and the cross-sector debates are able to inform
and guide the discussions that take place in such a mechanism. The proposal
from India went on this same direction.

If we think about it, EC (regardless of envisioned format) takes its
vitality from the IGF. So, I think that organizing this event is, in
itself, a political statement that can show the world how the IGF MS
community can, very practically, prepare background, analyze material,
discuss it, and forward conclusions. If we do it successfully, we will not
only be making a step to improve IGF methods, but we would also make a
strong point to support the important role of the IGF on a EC process. We
could even make the summary/conclusions reach the SG. I am sure this
document would be much more useful than the report from the 18th May
meeting. This, of course, will require the heavy preparation and planning
that Parminder mentioned.

By the way, like Parminder, I was (positively) surprised to read
suggestions made here that an IGF-related event should formally report its
discussions and  even make recommendations (the use of this tabu word has
been frequent on this thread) on EC. Some months ago we were arguing among
us if the IGF sessions should produce outcomes or not, and even the
possibility of producing outcomes "with different policy options" was
heavily criticized by some.  I hope that these suggestions show a change in
our common understanding. If so, we should seek that the same logic about
the outcomes applies to other IGF sessions that we/our organizations will
organize in Baku.

Marília

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:47 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

> **
>
>
> 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> <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58
> on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> <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 esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.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
>
>

-- 
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/20120530/46980dd9/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