[governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3

[Stephanie Perrin]

Thanks Mike, that would definitely be the one I am worried about. 
cheers steph
PS at our last EWG meeting in LA, where I was near brain dead, they fed us heavy ( I won’t say flour-less, but going in that direction) chocolate brownies at tea breaks.  Provided a new lease on life….Perhaps we could find a donor who could ship us each a box, so we can get going again….
On May 3, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG> wrote:

> Stephanie¹s admonition is especially true in light of possibility that
> internet initiatives may emerge in the ITU Plenipotentiary in October.
> Definitely better to get more work done sooner.
> 
> 
> ‹Mike
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
> 
> mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446
> 
> Skype mnemonic1026
> Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA
> 
> INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.
> www.internews.org <http://www.internews.org/> | @internews
> <http://www.twitter.com/internews> | facebook.com/internews
> <http://www.facebook.com/internews>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/3/14, 9:40 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for this summary, very interesting.  I think it would be unwise to
>> neglect a chance to move the yardsticks forward on enhanced cooperation,
>> which means (probably, or at least IMHO) seizing the good bits from the
>> attached document, cross  fertilizing with the good bits from netmundial,
>> reminding everyone how far the Internet has evolved since Tunis (and
>> therefore the people must too), and building a platform for rough
>> consensus on multistakeholder action.  This would be a welcome input to
>> discussion on other lists, where the interaction at times ranges from
>> arid to bloated, but all in all this will help it be more productive,
>> with substantive action items like this to build on.  Personally, while I
>> sure understand that everyone is tired, I don¹t believe we can sit on our
>> hands until the end of 2014, there are too many things we need to push to
>> the next level.
>> Thanks
>> Stephanie
>> On May 3, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> And then there was the third day.
>>> The last day.
>>> 
>>> We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated
>>> arguments.  Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached
>>> consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed
>>> was to reach full consensus.
>>> 
>>> As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full
>>> consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must
>>> confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting
>>> illusion.
>>> 
>>> We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups
>>> discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do
>>> next.
>>> 
>>> We had lunch.
>>> We talked,
>>> and we talked.
>>> 
>>> After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were
>>> not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting.
>>> 
>>> So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report.
>>> 
>>> Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report!
>>> 
>>> We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports.
>>> 
>>> Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report
>>> and be fair.
>>> 
>>> Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to
>>> be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep.
>>> 
>>> We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by
>>> the correspondence group.  Some of us wanted it to continue and become a
>>> living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the
>>> CSTD.  Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be
>>> dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had
>>> not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill
>>> 
>>> (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please
>>> forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the
>>> meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy
>>> volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their
>>> efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the
>>> workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a
>>> plague.)
>>> 
>>> As for the future, there may be further meetings.
>>> There may not be.
>>> If there are, they may occur this year.
>>> Or they may occur next year.
>>> 
>>> I personally hope that we continue the work.  but I hope we wait until
>>> after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all
>>> stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that
>>> NETmundial presents.  And after the IGF, which I hope learns something
>>> from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is
>>> going to do.
>>> 
>>> I thought the meetings were valuable.  I think the participants, and I
>>> hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are
>>> part of, have a better understanding now than they did before.
>>> 
>>> And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of
>>> the couplings at the meeting where wonderful.  For example the KSA and
>>> Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this
>>> meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of
>>> marginalized groups and a host of other issues.  It is good that there
>>> are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together.  And
>>> to see civil society members working closely with governments and with
>>> business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we
>>> disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on
>>> the few things we do disagree with.
>>> 
>>> Now I sound almost maudlin!
>>> 
>>> One last thing:
>>> 
>>> There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick
>>> Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_.  While we never did, as
>>> we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a
>>> possible offering.  Several of us from civil society, though not all by
>>> any means, did develop one.  While I will leave it for the others who
>>> worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put
>>> themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this
>>> compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of
>>> ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion.
>>> 
>>> Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now
>>> Who knows what the future will bring.
>>> 
>>> ----------------------
>>> The Opinion
>>> 
>>> This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants
>>> including group members Avri Doria, ...
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Definitions
>>> 
>>> Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral
>>> process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise
>>> and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full
>>> participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the
>>> Internet at all levels.
>>> 
>>> Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any
>>> person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully.
>>> 
>>> Equal  footing: the recognition, enjoyment  or exercise by all
>>> stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of
>>> the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes.  In Internet
>>> governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and
>>> responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with
>>> reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by
>>> governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth,
>>> contributions should  be judged on their quality, and not by the number
>>> of people that a representative may claim.
>>> 
>>> Possible outcome:
>>> 
>>> There is support within civil society for establishing a
>>> multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing  monitoring and
>>> analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the  on-demand sharing
>>> of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences  that governments
>>> and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view
>>> this as a first step,  building on the work of the Correspondence Group
>>> of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support
>>> within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder
>>> coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue
>>> or venues to develop  further policy as required. This could be
>>> accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate.
>>> 
>>> This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such
>>> the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission
>>> on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable
>>> venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the
>>> NETmundial Multistakeholder statement.
>>> 
>>> The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda.
>>> The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted
>>> from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for
>>> ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an
>>> impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet
>>> governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder
>>> models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in
>>> line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a
>>> static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it  becoming ever
>>> more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be
>>> treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build
>>> our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the
>>> area of Internet governance.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 


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