1+ to Bill.
Yes indeed, it helps to understand the process and its special history.
We should not forget that the "Multistakeholder Approach" is a (rather radical) innovation in global policy making and decision taking. The approach was desigend and pushed forward by a small goup of Internet people within the frameworks of IETF and ICANN in the 1990s and introduced into the UNICTTF and WSIS in the early 2000s. It is seen now as a success and the better (only?) way to handle the new complexities of the Internet Age.
But now, when Internet policies penetrates all spheres of the political discussions in areas like security, trade and human rights we see a "clash of cultures" where the innovative open, transparent and bottom up policy making procedures clash with the traditional top down approaches and deal makings behind closed doorsof the politcal Establishment. A lot of "old professionals" in the world of policy making trust what they know and mistrust new approaches. We see this in the US Congress, where senators in the IANA Transition are asking critical questions full of mistrust about the multistakeholder model and prefer the "traditional oversight" by a known politcal players as the US government. We see this in the G 7 where the leaders of the industrial world give lip service to the multistakeholder principle but produce documents, drafted by governmental sherpas behind closed doors without any call for public input and an opportunity for public comment. And we see this in the UN.
My understanding is that UNDESA has no bad intentions or does not plan a "conspiracy" against the IGF. They are just doing their "business as usual". And they have not yet understood that the 21st century is different from the 20th century. They have not yet understood that the multistakeholder model is not based on the principle of national sovereignty of UN member states but on principles like openess, transparency, equal Access for all governmental and non-governmental stakeholderrs, bottom up policy development, rough consenus and running code.
Insofar we should use the opportunity to comment on the planned IGF retreat by explaining more in detail what we (NCUC, civil society) expect from a multistakeholder process. There are good references in the WSIS +10 document, so we can take them by their own words and lead them into the new world of open and transparent policy making mechanisms.
Wolfgang
BTW, I have raised this issue already two years ago here:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140818_sailing_backwards_wsis_10_avoids_entering_unchartered_territory/
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Mo 06.06.2016 09:17
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Update: CSCG & IGF Planning Retreat
Hi Shane
Thanks for your note and nice to meet you BTW.
In the early years of the IGF liftoff the initial MAG meetings were very tense as all the polarizing issues raised just prior in WSIS were still in the air and the various sides were strategizing heavily on how to control the narrative and meeting agendas. In particular, the tech and business communities and their supporters in OECD governments were very worried that the IGF would be overly focused on ICANN and its perceived shortcomings and demands for a new UN body with superpowers inter alia to 'oversee' ICANN, so much so that the WSIS-era code word for names number root system etc.---critical Internet resources---could not be addressed in the initial 2006 Athens program. (by way of explanation you can look at the chapter 'Critical Internet Resources: Coping with the Elephant in the Room' by NCUCer Jeanette Hofmann in the book I edited based on the Sharm meeting http://amzn.to/1Y2sKqc <http://amzn.to/1Y2sKqc>, and the chapter 'A critical look at critical Internet resources, since WGIG' by Paul Wilson and Pablo Hinojosa in the booked I edited for the WGIG's 10th anniversary http://amzn.to/22IcHi3 <http://amzn.to/22IcHi3>). So in that period, calls, particularly from NCUC members and others in civil society, for full transparency, openness to observers, and remote participation in the MAG meetings were denied, and the best we could get was Chatham-based post hoc summaries of the MAG's closed mail list.
But people keep kept pressing for more, in keeping with the original WGIG vision and subsequent TA mandate, and as comfort levels increased people unclenched and we were progressively to get these things. Now the F2F meets are open to all whose atoms are in Geneva, the sessions have remote participation, there are no secret documents involved, and the IGF uses a publicly archived mail list (if memory serves a private one was retained for sensitive discussions of people, e.g. possibilities for the main sessions, but I don't recall that we really used it much when I was a member). Sorry, I don't remember the precise dates on which each of these shifts happened but the info should be on the website.
So there has been institutionalized in the collective mind and in the concrete practice of the 'IGF community' (those who are actively engaged and care about building this multistakeholder process) a strong presumption that everything should be open and fairly bottom up. However, the UN bureaucracy has never bought into this, at least with respect to its own operations. So the stakeholders nominate candidates to the MAG bottom up but DESA decides among these in a black box fashion. So reports for ECOSOC about the IGF's progress get commissioned and then buried by DESA without informing community reps on the MAG. So consultations and decisions happen between the DESA and various powers that be behind closed doors with no reporting. So swank retreats with unclear mandates and authority get decided and announced by DESA without any consultation with the MAG, and when people like me and Avri and Renata jump up and down on various lists about the need for transparency and remote participation, we get back as a grudging answer that maybe some sessions of the retreat can be reported out on a Chatham basis. This is inconsistent with the norms and processes the community has established, and is regressive. Hence the discussion.
In other contexts Chatham can be quite useful and is a step toward opening closed processes. Here it is a step toward closing open processes.
Hope that helps,
Bill
> On Jun 6, 2016, at 05:17, Shane Kerr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> William,
>
> It seemed to me that you were implying that the Chatham House style is
> obviously bad. It is not. There are benefits and drawbacks.
>
> I'd be interested to hear what the "various reasons" are that the IGF
> does not use it. You know, for transparency. ;) (Ideally you can just
> point me to the documentation about this...)
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>
> At 2016-06-03 13:31:44 +0200
> William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks Shane. I'm familiar with the rule. We don't use it in the IGF, for various reasons, at least not since the early tense days of the MAG.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 12:13, Shane Kerr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> William,
>>>
>>> At 2016-06-03 11:13:55 +0200
>>> William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 02:06, avri doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Chatham House style (content w/o attribution)
>>>>
>>>> In true bottom up transparent community driven IGF fashion..not.
>>>
>>> To be honest, that doesn't seem too horrible. The Chatham House rule is
>>> there for a reason:
>>>
>>> Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
>>>
>>> A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views
>>> that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it
>>> encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if
>>> they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications
>>> if they are publicly quoted.
>>>
>>> https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Shane - speaking only for myself ;)
>>
>>
>> *************************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections
>> New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
>> *************************************************************
>>
*************************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
www.williamdrake.org
The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections
New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
*************************************************************
|
