[governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance

[Adam Peake]

On Oct 31, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
>> So we should think about the modalities for that.  In one of the
>> focus sessions the Brazilian Ambassador said when they used the word
>> Summit they really did mean a *Summit*, i.e. high level with enough
>> authority to make decisions (light paraphrasing of his words).  Is
>> this the impression everyone got from meetings with the Brazilian
>> delegation and other stakeholders?
> 
> My impression is that the Brazilian delegation has been consistently
> speaking of a summit, while stakeholders who are not comfortable with
> governments having a strong role in Internet governance related
> decision making have preferred to use a different terminology.

Thanks Norbert.  This kind of thing is important.  In the emerging issues session (transcript <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-transcripts/1439-taking-stock-emerging-issues--internet-surveillance>) Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho said:

[ quote]  I   w a s   r e f e r r i n g   b e f o r e   t o   t h e   k i n d   o f   m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s   t h a t   s o m e t i m e s   o c c u r ,   a n d   t h e   P r e s i d e n t   h a s   t e r m e d   t h i s   m e e t i n g   a s   a   " S u m m i t , "   a n d   i t   m u s t   b e   u n d e r s t o o d   t h a t   f r o m   t h e   p o i n t   o f   v i e w   o f   G o v e r n m e n t ,   w h a t   w e   a r e   a i m i n g   a t   i s   a t   a   v e r y   h i g h  l e v e l   e v e n t   t h a t   w o u l d   w i s h f u l l y   b e   a b l e   t o   m a k e   k i n d   o f   d e c i s i o n   t h a t   c o u l d   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   w o r k   w e   a r e   d o i n g . 
 
 S o   t h i s   i s   t h e   m e a n i n g   o f   s a y i n g   a   " S u m m i t . "     I t   s h o u l d   n o t   b e   i n t e r p r e t e d   a s   m e a n i n g   i t ' s   s o m e t h i n g   e x c l u s i v e l y   f o r   G o v e r n m e n t s .     I   t h i n k   t h i s   i s   t h e   k i n d   o f   c o n c e p t u a l   d i f f e r e n c e   t h a t   s o m e t i m e s   m u s t   b e   s p e l l e d   o u t .     W h e n   w e   s a y "   S u m m i t ,   " w e   m e a n   a   m e e t i n g   t h a t   w i l l   b e       w i l l   h a v e   a u t h o r i t y   e n o u g h   t o   m a k e   d e c i s i o n s .     A n d   a t   t h e   s a m e   t i m e ,   t h e   P r e s i d e n t   c l e a r l y   a l s o   s p e l l e d   o u t   t h a t   s h e   w o u l d   e x p e c t   C i v i l   S o c i e t y ,   p r i v a t e   s o c i e t y ,   a l l   s t a k e h o l d e r s   t o   b e   r e p r e s e n t e d ,   a n d   I   w o u l d   d a r e   t o   s a y   o n   a n   e q u a l   l e v e l   a s   r e g a r d   a n y   d e c i s i o n  m a k i n g   p r o c e s s   t h a t   m i g h t   b e       m i g h t   t a k e   p l a c e   a t   t h a t   p o i n t ,   w h i c h   w e   a i m   o f   c o u r s e   a t   s o m e   k i n d   o f   c o n s e n s u s . [end quote]

"misunderstandings", right.  So we have the Brazilian Ambassador saying one thing and another interpretation going around.  Which is correct?  Not a great start if we are working to contribute/design a different kind of meeting.

I understand Brazil wants to expand the "ownership" of the summit and is rumored to be talking to other governments to do that.  That's important, if correct and is being successful.

Amb, Fonseca also makes clear in the emerging issues session that they see the Summit as a follow-up to President Rousseff UN GA speech. As you said. 


> The
> whole thing being in flux as much as it is, this use of a different
> terminology has probably been influenced by an intention to try to
> minimize governmental influence on the Internet.
> 


I would very much like to see an outcome as less government not more. 


>> Such Summits are not easy for CS, we don't have ministers, CEOs, etc
>> that can slip easily into representative roles (and can sense the
>> shoving for those CS seats begin :-) )  
>> 
>> We have heard about some coalition of stakeholders that will work on
>> ideas for the summit, what is this, can someone explain (and others
>> confirm.)  Is it for modalities of participation?  For issues on the
>> summit agenda?  For outcomes and what comes after May in Brazil?  (or
>> all and more?)
> 
> At least one such group is indeed in the process of forming itself, or
> at least trying to do so. I'm attaching the best information that I have
> available, which is the meeting report from a meeting on Friday that
> has been circulated on the BestBits list.
> 

Thanks. Looks more like the Brazil coordinators, good.  But if bestbits is taking on such tasks it really does need to be more transparent -- ok to use small groups to draft documents, but not to design process and representation.  Perhaps Jeremy could explain how bestbits works and what its doing.

Best,

Adam
 


> Greetings,
> Norbert<coalition:dialogue_meeting.doc>


-------------- 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