[governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Fouad Bajwa]

The MAG does not have the mandate to choose or outright reject
anything that is recommended by the WG-IGF.

In my personal view, the suggested text by Norbert is very well IGC's
perspective and does not need any alterations. The objections or
disagreement put forward do not, from my personal observation,
represent the Geneva and Tunis agreements and perspectives that
developing countries hold. I do not see where we from the developing
world have diverted from the WGIGF politic and why would some new view
to deal with things suddenly emerge and suddenly IGC would have a
totally different view on a multistakeholder led process.

MAG itself cannot implement anything. It is a programming MSG led
process that helps program the UNSG convene the IGF. It assists the
UNSG, does not take UN related decisions or etc. The mandate is to the
UNSG and from what we clearly know, the CSTD WG-IGF made
recommendations that through the UNSG, UNDESA and the IGF have to be
incorporated. These recommendations do not give the MAG some kind of
supreme power to move from an institutional form to an instrumental
form.

If there is something that we want to immediately see, is that, to
implement the recommendations of Working Group on IGF Improvements
(WG-IGF), period. If IGC can continue to raise this and encourage
this, we will do great benefit to the IGF proces. IGC should not
divert from what its member worked in the CSTD to do. IGC members of
the WG-IGF helped bring in the IGC perspective into the WG-IGF and we
should push for having all those recommendations that did reach the
final Chair's report as WG-IGF recommendations to be implemented as
soon as possible.

Best

Fouad



On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:04 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Avri
>
> You have basic disagreement with, what I see as, all the three main
> substantive elements of the draft statement at present. So, I wonder where
> are we going to go from here. But still I will respond to the three
> issues...
>
> 1) There is a proposal in the draft statment to ask MAG - what it obviously
> its duty to do - to implement the recommendations of Working Group on IGF
> Improvements (WGIIGF). You disagree. WG IIGF was a multistakeholder group,
> duly constituted after an intense political process, which gave two open
> calls for inputs, held a few open consultations, and made a report by
> consensus. This report was then approved by the UN General Assembly. Now you
> do not want it implemented. You want what you call as the 'IGF body polity'
> to review the recs .... BTW, the 'IGF body politic' did give its comments to
> the WG process in various ways... Now what is this process of review by the
> IGF body politics that you suggest should be taken. Can you pl be explicit.
> (BTW IGC did hold a workshop on recs of WG IIGF at BAku.) I understand that
> *finally* you want the MAG to decide on what to implement or not... How is
> that process better than the current process that has worked over 2-3 years
> and has concluded now.... Avri, what are up to I really fail to understand.
> Please make it clear. You are blocking a very important, and to my mind a
> relatively straight forward, input from the IGC to the MAG process.
>
> 2) You dont agree that a focussed policy question on network neutrality (NN)
> should be dealt centrally by the IGF (and want it relegated to a workshop of
> which suggestion I cant make anything becuase workshops on NN have been held
> in every IGF). Here you are subverting the main recommendation of the WG on
> IIGF that IGFs should have main sessions organised around focussed policy
> issues/ questions .... you are also blocking consideration of an issue - of
> net neutrality - which is key to many if not most people's progressive
> politics here. IGC statements to MAG have repeatedly sought NN issue to be
> taken up by the IGF... So why have you suddenly concluded that NN is not a
> clear enough issue.
>
> 3) You disagree with proposing 'Meaningful participaiton of all stakeholders
> in IG' as an overall theme... and I again cannot understand the reason. This
> proposal had strong support on the list... And if you also want to add
> another suggestion for the overall theme on 'human rights' please go ahead.
> But why oppose the 'Meaningful participaiton of all stakeholders in IG'
> theme..
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 13 February 2013 08:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>
>>> [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>>>
>>> As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will
>>> be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have
>>> made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before
>>> the deadline.
>>>
>>> Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one
>>> that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...
>>>
>>> In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that
>>> have remained unchanged since the last update.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>> The decision process is going to be:
>>>> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
>>>> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
>>>> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>>>>   the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
>>>> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects
>>>>   to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>>>>   proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>>>>   current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>>>>   unchanged in that regard.
>>>> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>>>>   resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>>>>   improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft
>>>> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>>>>   will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>>>>   try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>>>>   charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>>>>   enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paragraph 1
>>>> ===========
>>>> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
>>>> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
>>>> way forward:"
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
>>>> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
>>>> on the process that was followed."
>>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
>>>> will be added.
>>>>
>> Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process.  extract a few of
>> your sentence.  something like:
>>
>> Co-cos put out a call, we have a common doc that allowed for comments by
>> the paragraph, we had list discussions. we went  through a repeat process of
>> calling for consensus, we had  last call for members only, the co-cos called
>> consensus, we were done.
>>
>>>> Paragraph 2
>>>> ===========
>>>> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
>>>> IGF Improvements"
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
>>>> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
>>>> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the
>>>> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
>>>> implemented."
>>>
>>> Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but
>>> how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their
>>> ‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky
>>> territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –
>>> CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with
>>> consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become
>>> the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the
>>> undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."
>>
>> As I recommended.  MAG needs to recommend implementation of any of these
>> so-called multistakeholder recommendations.  To do this they first subject
>> it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment byt the IGF body
>> politic.
>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>>> the draft text.
>>
>> Insert:
>>
>> Before MAG  implements of any of the CSTD WG recommendations, we recommend
>> that they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open
>> comment by the IGF body politic.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Paragraph 3
>>>> ===========
>>>> Current text: "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 too long it has remained caught in matters of process and
>>>> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>>>>
>>>> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>>>> does it “really need to do”?"
>>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>>>> resulting in: "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."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paragraph 4
>>>> ===========
>>>> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
>>>> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
>>>> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
>>>> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
>>>> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
>>>> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
>>>> what not to implement."
>>>>
>>>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
>>>> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
>>>> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
>>>
>>> Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely
>>> unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case
>>> should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the
>>> MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that
>>> power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to
>>> do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back
>>> this highly problematic move."
>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>>> the draft text.
>>>>
>> see the response above.
>>
>>>> Paragraph 10
>>>> ============
>>>> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>>>> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
>>>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>>>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>>>> and institutions involved in this process?”
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
>>>> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do
>>>> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not
>>>> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,
>>>> more that it already is?"
>>>
>>> Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a
>>> key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do
>>> not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at
>>> the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,
>>> after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt
>>> ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"
>>
>> I am fine with saying that we think the best effort network for all is the
>> best idea..
>>
>>>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
>>>> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
>>
>> It is clear in everyones mind.  Just the images are completely different.
>>
>>
>>>> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
>>>> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
>>>> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is
>>>> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
>>>> develop a shared understanding."
>>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>>> the draft text.
>>>>
>> "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>> propose that the following policy question
>>
>> be included as a workshop topic  for
>>
>> 2013
>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>> and institutions involved in this process?”
>>
>>
>>>> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>>>> =============================
>>>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>>>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
>>>> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
>>>> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
>>>> on Human Rights as a general theme?"
>>>
>>> Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about
>>> ‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand
>>> when almost every global IG document seem to focus on
>>> multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand
>>> its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."
>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>>> the draft text.
>>
>> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
>>
>> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> to be continued...
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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