[discuss] NETmundial and CSTD mtg

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Sun May 18 12:11:03 UTC 2014

I am one of the MAG members who will be in Paris and we are of course heavily engaged in program planning, including evaluation of workshops and also the development of the main sessions. 
As we plan the main session on IG, it is also important to have workshops and open forum discussions about topics that feed into this and other IGF main sessions.  But, we need to also maintain a balance so  we are meeting and fulfilling all the themes, and the broader mission of IGF, not only discussing evolution of IG mechanisms. 
That happens to be the main session that I volunteered to help with, but like all MAG members and many of you on this list, we also need to build strong workshops in the other thematic areas to ensure a highly successful and relevant IGF.
I like your idea about the concept of 'new institutional thinking' and perhaps we are also, or many of us thinking that we also need to understand that institutions do need to be better understood. so I also like the idea of the open forum approach from some key institutions. For instance, I have hopes that CSTD/UNCTAD will do an open forum, joining ITU and UNESCO and OECD. I am not suggesting that all institutions are intergovernmental or interregional governmental, only that these groups are  contributors and collaborators alongside other stakeholders and the IGOs and IOs. 
As the regional groups, like ECA, and ECLAC, etc, are also doing a lot of relevant policy discussion, such groups are also key participants.  
I was also just at CSTD, and want to note the excellent reports on the role of S and T and E [okay, Science, Technology and Engineering] as it is applied to challenges in developing countries. The STI report from Oman was really interesting.  As many on this list know, CSTD was given the assignment by the UNGA for WSIS follow up, in addition to its role as advisor to the UNGA, through ECOSOC, on these issues.  The studies and reports that it does are very interesting explorations of the ways that S and T can address key development challenges.  If you are not yet a fan of CSTD's reports and work, I do advise you consider learning more about its work. It brings together the S and T ministers from 43 countries, alongside other experts. 
I am reminded always in such sessions that 'facts are our friends' and the work of CSTD is fact based, as is UNCTAD's. Of course, there are geo political implications, but my point is to share a  thought about informational resources and publications some of you may find interesting and relevant. 
In addition to speakers from many governments, the business speaker was Jimson Olufuye, AFicTA, and for Civil Society,a quite well known expert from APC spoke. 
The CSTD also drafts the two key resolutions that go to ECOSOC  and then to UNGA on WSIS follow up and STI; both are relevant to those of us who care about advancing multi stakeholder participation and multi stakeholder engagement.  
Marilyn CadeDate: Sun, 18 May 2014 12:19:34 +0100
From: cdel at firsthand.net
To: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
CC: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] NETmundial and CSTD mtg

There is a big ocean out there that can't be 

Tim Berners-Lee's magna carta idea is an attempt to set 
out agreed top level principles to frame how those interventions within 
and between Governments on matters related to privacy and security over 
digital networks are handled. That is a big idea.

The top level 
of IG debate is being bogged down by a lack of such understanding and 
the failure to separate national security interests from the management 
of network resources. There is a long history and deeply embedded 
institutional frameworks that have tied these two tightly together and 
it is going to take a huge shift in culture, based on new confidence in 
making significant operational changes to evolve political expectations.

The devolution of the IANA function is a victim of this. The 
question is can it be separated from the broader governmental discussion
 by demarcating clearly the limit to its scope and scale whilst 
establishing a form of API to support open interaction with all 
stakeholders including with those at ICANN, and new developments in 
global multi-lateral governance and debates at IGF and other places? 

 issue here is that we may not need new institutions but we do need new 
institutional thinking in almost all the existing ones. That suggests a 
long period of transition ahead where the balances between stakeholders 
will be fluid. 



   	Nick Ashton-Hart      
  18 May 2014 10:54Dear Avri,
 someone who had the 'privilege' of sitting through big parts of CSTD 
(and all of NetMundial), I see a lot of truth in what you have said. 
 is not there - and this is not a criticism; I don't think you were 
looking to address it - is the scale of the problem we are facing.
 put: a number of countries that previously fought for a states-based IG
 paradigm would accept a compromise. Post-Snowden, that is largely 
untrue: success in any multistakeholder venue is now to ensure that the process
 is a failure.
This cannot be dealt with inside
 of IG because the problem is a symptom of issues elsewhere. I think we 
all know what they are - and now the addition of a powerful political 
imperative because of surveillance.
shouldn't be this way, but IG is now much more of a hostage to politics 
rather than a place where compromise can be found and issues explored 
logically; it was bad before but it is now near the point of seizure. If
 we don't want the Internet to suffer fundamentally, then we need to 
look at the underlying issues and be willing to find ways to deal with 
those underlying issues where there is an option.
 must stress: IG is not the venue for most of these issues to be solved,
 or even discussed in depth. It has no decision-making venues that can 
give a solution, and moreover, these other issues are not Internet 
issues or Internet governance issues at all, but rather broader social 
issues and need the expertise and experience of those venues and 
participants who know them.
In the human rights
 council there is a very productive work plan on privacy and rights 
online. There is a process beginning at UNESCO, too. There are others; 
the work of the ECWG has mapped out quite a few of them. 
 we can do within the IG framework is reach out to these institutions 
and those who participate in them and ask how we can help - and as a 
concrete proposal, we should ask them all to hold focus sessions at the 
IGF to help us all understand their work better. As I will not be in 
Paris for the MAG I hope that some of you who are will take this up.

Nick Ashton-Hart
Executive Director, Internet &
 Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
 (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
Skype: nashtonhart
Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? 
Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton

 mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
Christian de Larrinaga 



 @ FirstHand

+44 7989 386778

cdel at firsthand.net 


discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140518/1ca812d4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: compose-unknown-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 770 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140518/1ca812d4/compose-unknown-contact.jpg>

More information about the discuss mailing list