[WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] Post mortem and next steps on IG

[William Drake]

Hi v,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola

> For example: why don't we formally put together a "civil society
> delegation", composed by a few people (3-5) entrusted by this Plenary,
> and send a letter to Karklins saying that we would like such delegation
> to be formally included in the open ended negotiations? After all, the

You're welcome to try, but it won't work.  Karklins and all others are
undoubtedly fully aware that we are deeply unhappy with the approach taken,
and they have taken it anyway.  I would think that decision is final.

> I am pissed up by the fact that our contributions are not included in
> the compilation of proposals. I am wondering whether we should not
> produce (in a few days!) our version of section 5, i.e. actual language,
> and submit it to Khan and Karklins, asking for it to be included in the
> proposals transmitted to the resumed session. At least, we could reuse
> that language for the (now apparently likely) CS declaration :-)

I remain skeptical that we could come quickly to a shared position in the
caucus, much less CS more generally, on the oversight question due to
varying views on the proper roles of governments.  It will take some
sustained and focused dialogue, and if we cannot agree in the end, I would
again suggest that "like minded" orgs and individuals do sign-on letters
reflecting their respective orientations.  That said, all our contributions
agreed and submitted to date should have been included alongside the others,
and it would be entirely reasonable for our coordinators to write asking
that a revised and complete compilation be issued, no?

> >and allowed its
> >position to be folded together with the Like Minded Group, and
> >specifically endorsed Khan distributing his Food for Thought doc and
> >having it forwarded alongside others to Tunis.
> >
> Well, no, in the discussion the EU said "do as you like, we only have a
> moderate preference for you to release the paper". It was a mild and
> cautious endorsement, not as if the EU was a strong supporter of this.

This seems like a distinction without a difference.  It was a binary choice.

> Of course, I can't tell you about the internal dynamics of the EU, but
> it is definitely surprising that the representatives of some governments
> that generally have a pro-deregulation and even pro-US foreign policy
> were among the strongest supporters of not moving towards the US. This
> might be due to the fact that not all EU countries had Foreign Ministry
> officers participating in the discussion - actually many of them have
> delegations composed of relatively technical people. So if the level of

I do think there was a principles and agents problem going on with the
delegations, which is part of why I expect some backtracking.  But again,
it's remarkable to think that after years of preparation, any EU government
representatives could have been operating under less than crystal clear
instructions from their capitals and ended up joining in on a position that
went notably beyond their previous pronouncements.

> The EU position was ultimately agreed just a few minutes before being
> handed out at the meeting. You might consider it incredible that the

Right on both counts.

> >So one would guess that the EU stance
> >is still in flux, the coalition could soften, and the alignment with the
> >LMG could be more apparent than real.
> >
> No, well, observing carefully the situation from the outside, there
> clearly are two different possible strategies: one sees Europe as the
> left-wing end (i.e., pro moderate change) of the coalition of Western
> countries plus most Latin Americans and Africans, aimed at determining a
> progressive evolution of the present IG system, and the other sees
> Europe as the leader of a coalition including the LMG and most of the
> Third World, and aimed at isolating the US in a high level Summit of
> Heads of State, using IG and the orderly evolution of the Internet as a
> sacrificable tool to that political objective. Which will prevail, if
> any... it is totally unclear to me. I'd say that no one knows yet.

This seems to be agreement rather than disagreement; it's in flux.  Not sure
I characterizing the first as left-wing is right but whatever.

Cheers,

Bill