[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Feb 3 04:37:10 EST 2013
On Sunday 03 February 2013 01:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Parminder, could you send a link to IGF Improvements working group's
> report(s).
unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf
>
> Has there been a discussion on the list about the WG's recommendations?
It is an interesting question. The developments at the meeting were
presented to the IGC throughout, as well as the final outcomes...
However, I did not find much discussion on them, which surprised me
since IGC claims principally to be IGF oriented.
What surprised me even further was that some of the key areas proposed
for IGF improvements - like providing relatively clear recommendations,
forming of issues based working groups by and in the MAG, etc,
generally to extend MAG beyond being a mere program committee and IGF
merely a open platform for discussions - have subsequently been strongly
taken up by the very actors that opposed these 'improvements' within the
WG . In this regard, the 'looking forward' session on the last day of
Baku IGF, and the 'controversial' MAG meeting on the same day, were key
events. But a strong inkling of what was coming was available in the the
BAku pre-event on enhanced cooperation, and also some posting by some
IGC members in the run up to the Baku IGF.
I am cut-pasting below excerpts from the 2012 annual report of IT for
Change
<http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/AnnualReport2011-12/Annualreport_full_2011-2012.pdf>
containing a very brief report on the WG on IGF improvement, which is of
course written for a more general audience.
Parminder
Excerpts from the ITfC annual report on WG on IGF improvements.
*Improving the UN Internet Governance Forum*
IT for Change has been one of the five civil society members of the CSTD
Working Group on Improvements to the IGF. Over 2010-2011, we presented
our own extensive proposals for IGF improvements
(http://itforchange.net/UNCSTD_WGIIGF_input_papers) and also worked
closely with the Indian government to develop what came to be called as
the 'India proposal' (http://itforchange.net/india_report_wgiigf). This
was a very elaborate proposal for improving the IGF to become a
path-breaking global institution of deliberative democracy, ensuring
very broad public participation in global Internet policy making. Much
of the discussions of the Working Group revolved around the 'India
proposal'. In May 2011, the CSTD extended the life of the Working Group.
During 2011-2012, the group met thrice and in all the meetings IT for
Change was very active. Unfortunately, while developing countries had
strongly pushed for strengthening the IGF in the first round of meetings
of the Working Group, an effort resisted by developed countries and the
business community, in the second round, developing countries became
rather restrained.
They had serious misgivings about the role of the IGF in supplanting
rather than supporting democratic global governance systems. This rather
justified feeling unfortunately added to the already strong fear among
the more authoritatively inclined countries that the IGF will mostly be
used to fan human rights issues.
The second round of meetings of the Working Group saw a surprising
amount of consensus among government representatives from across North
and South, and also business members, for not rocking the status quo
with regard to the IGF. Most developing countries had strongly resisted
the primacy of a capacity building role for the IGF at the debates
before the Tunis Summit, most graphically described in the words of a
developing country diplomat, "We don't want developed countries to set
up a school for developing countries". Very interestingly, the same
countries were now found to insist on a primary capacity-building role
for the IGF at the Working Group meetings. They also now joined the
developed countries to speak against public funding of the IGF, and
against having its outcomes formally communicated to bodies dealing with
Internet governance. No one seemed interested in strengthening the IGF;
on one side they did not want to lose their hegemonic positions, and on
the other, they were not sure of the new role of non-state actors in
global governance. This shows how much developing countries have lost
confidence and trust in the IGF over the years.
This left the few civil society members of the group in a rather
difficult position to try and salvage at least some possibilities of
improvements to the IGF. The Working Group meetings become a rather
lack-lustre affair with little desire for real change among the
overwhelming majority in the room. If the final report still has some
useful recommendations, it largely goes back to the first round of
meetings of the Working Group, which contributed the basic structure of
the final report and gave some meaty language to the draft (The 'India
proposal' by far made the largest contribution in this regard). Though
most of it got whittled-down,what survived constitutes the most
important part of the final report of the Working Group.
The final report focuses on 'outcomes' from the IGF, a term that had
become contested in the post Summit years. This recommendation, if
sincerely followed, should provide avenues of some improvements in the
IGF. The report also asks for focus on clear policy questions, with the
results of the discussions on these questions required to be reflected
in the 'outcome' documents. In fact, one of the most important
contributions of the report is its re-affirmation of the primacy of the
policy dialogue role of the IGF over its capacity building role. While
the mandate from the Tunis Summit is clear in this regard, in the
subsequent years, very strong, and somewhat successful, efforts have
been made to undermine the primacy of the policy dialogue role. The
report also makes some useful contribution on how the Multi-stakeholder
Advisory Group of the IGF should be constituted, especially with regard
to making sure that (1) it is not captured by a few powerful
stakeholders, and (2) there is an improvement in the representation of
the hitherto under-represented groups. The report also stresses the need
for complete transparency vis-à-vis the income and expenditure of the
IGF. IT for Change will try to monitor closely how the recommendations
of the Working Group are carried out.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>> Apologies for being late into this important discussion.
>>
>> I will comment separately on the discussions that have taken place
>> upto now and the evolving text. However, I think we should first of
>> all seek that MAG implements the recommendations of the WG on IGF
>> Improvements, especially on the following counts
>> (below are all quotes from the WG's report)
>>
>> "To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should
>> formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as
>> part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates of these
>> questions, with special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed
>> at capacity building, should be stated in the outcome documentation."
>>
>> "The outcome documentation should include messages that map out
>> converging and diverging opinions on given questions."
>>
>>
>>
>> "S(...identifying pertinent key policy questions around which main
>> sessions for the IGF will be structured. In order to enhance the
>> bottom-up process and to facilitate the identification of key policy
>> questions, the Secretariat could also issue the call for workshop
>> proposals before the first Open Consultation."
>>
>>
>>
>> (quotes end)
>>
>> There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis a vis the
>> fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy
>> questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of.
>> For tooo long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
>> It is time to do what it really needed to do.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>
>>> Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow
>>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> re Main sessions.
>>>>>> *Only two *90min main sessions.
>>>>>> One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
>>>>>> Interpretation only in english.
>>>>>> Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
>>>>> like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
>>>>> session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79>http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, why?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes Norbert.
>>>>
>>>> Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
>>>> celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
>>>> truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
>>>> because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
>>>> that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
>>>>
>>>> One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
>>>> means. Result will tell.
>>>>
>>>> Workshops are more effective because:
>>>> - there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
>>>> one,
>>>> - speakers use spontaneous language,
>>>> - there are more interactions with the attendees,
>>>> - specific topics fit better with a small room,
>>>> - it's easier to identify who is there.
>>>>
>>>> On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
>>>> english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
>>>> could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
>>>> various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
>>>> (Chicagoan).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
>>> making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
>>> give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
>>> just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
>>> and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
>>> that is truly taken seriously.
>>>
>>> So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
>>> the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
>>> for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
>>> of them.
>>>
>>> So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
>>> request.
>>>
>>> What do the others think?
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130203/47f0d8d4/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list