[discuss] [bestbits] Re: Draft statement on making IGF permanent

Tue Sep 2 22:23:04 UTC 2014

+1 Open-ended.

https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K

It works better when we react and embrace superior argument.
-AA.

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> George,
>
> You are really confusing people. Time ago, WK wrote that
> multistakeholderism was invented by Kofi Annan, the former UN SG, back in
> 2003 (and not the corporations). Now you are telling us that UN is a threat
> to MSism. Isn't it the UN that created the IGF (with no money indeed)?
> Still IGF is very specific "thing", and still you are making a poor
> parallel with the ITU which in terms of structure has absolutely nothing to
> do with the IGF. What is this all about? Now, as BB is trying to create a
> consensus regarding the future of IGF, you are advocating for the IGF not
> to be permanent because the UN would be a threat to it,  if it were to
> become permanent.
>
> Yesterday you stated
> -" *I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative
> mode rather than an environment of suspicion.*"
> -"... *I think that this thread has achieved all the usefulness that it
> will have, and I will be reluctant to carry it further*."
> and now
> "*On a personal note, I'm quite glad to see you intervening on these
> various lists, and I think that your posts are generally really thoughtful
> and excellent.  I never delete or file them before taking the time to read
> them completely.*"
>
> Did you wish to give Mawaki a good mark in front of everyone? How bizarre!
> As a personal comment shouldn't it be made privately?
>
> What is this way of behaving within a grown up community and supposedly
> democratic forum? Do we need someone to invent suspicion when there are
> only basic factual concerns? Do we need someone to tell us when a
> discussion is over? Do we all need to know when you think whether Mr X or
> Mr Y deserves a public compliment?
>
> This is all very embarrassing and I am wondering... Who are you working
> for and what's your objective?
>
> JC
>
> Le 2 sept. 2014 à 22:11, George Sadowsky a écrit :
>
> Below are responses to both Mawaki and Michael Gurstein:
>
> Mawaki,
>
> Yes, the structure and participatory model are different, and that would
> make some difference.  My concern is that if IGF is to be captured by the
> UN, changes would likely change place over time that would be at the sole
> discretion of the UN.
>
> So to be direct in responding, I think that the evolution toward a
> "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would
> likely mean the weakening of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up
> nature of the IGF processes.  I point to the ITU as an example; its mandate
> is governed by its 190+ countries that have ITU membership, and their
> decision are the ones that determined the work plan of the organization.
>  The same is true for the UN Secretariat, and nothing in any agreement
> between the UN and the IGF will alter that.
>
> Mawaki, I think both the UN and the IGF are important and positive
> institutions in their own way.  My argument is with the IGF going solidly
> and/or permanently under the UN umbrella, nothing more.  See my response to
> Michael below for more.
>
> On a personal note, I'm quite glad to see you intervening on these various
> lists, and I think that your posts are generally really thoughtful and
> excellent.  I never delete or file them before taking the time to read them
> completely.
>
> George
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi George,
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:54 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]
>
>
> <snippet>
>
>
> Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of
> computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the
> committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID
> from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to
> assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars,
> and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the
> center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of
> more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the
> IGF within the UN to produce any better results.
>
>
> Just to make sure I understand you well, isn't the structure and the
> participatory model of IGF different enough from those two examples you
> just cited so as to expect different results regardless of the level of
> institutionalization with the UN? Otherwise stated, are you assuming with
> your above assertion that an evolution toward a "permanent" body within the
> UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would necessarily mean the
> disappearance of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the
> IGF processes?
>
>
> Again and to state it more explicitly, by asking this, I'm not necessarily
> advocating the creation of a new UN body for IGF.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Michael,
>
> Well, millions may have been an exaggeration, but maybe not.  I think that
> both Sergei and Sarbuland were either at the D-1 or D-2 level, and that,
> with New York post adjustment and other additions comes to about $200-$250K
> per year.  Multiply by eight years, and add in travel costs.  The money
> that went to them had an opportunity cost and, as we have discussed, that
> cost is measured in terms of their blocking the center and thereby
> discouraging new initiatives.  Now you may be correct in that the money did
> not come from the UN regular budget, but it came from some budget, and
> could have been used differently.
>
> I take your latter point fully.  The UN system contributed significantly
> to developing countries in terms of transferring ICT equipment, skills,
> experience, and knowledge.  In general, this was done through the
> specialized agencies and the UN Secretariat, although UNDP had its Office
> of Project Execution (OPE) for a long time and UNFPA had its own large
> program.  And the budgets in the 1970s and into the 1980s were robust;
> governments had bought into the multilateral aid program.  I was fully
> involved in this technology transfer for 13 years as a UN Secretariat
> international civil servant; I worked in 35 countries directly and executed
> useful projects with my group in probably 40 others.
>
> That ICT4D program continues to this day, but in a much abbreviated form,
> unfortunately, due to changes in funding patterns by donor countries.
>  Looking back, and even at the time, those programs were generally well
> managed and the results support your point below; the donors got good value
> for their money.
>
> My remarks should not be construed as anti-UN.  The UN is a good
> institution that is dealing with difficult issues.  However, I'm very
> conscious of the UN's ability to set up self perpetuating bureaucracies and
> then to use them to their advantage.  You do remember when we cynically
> called GAID Sarbuland Khan's retirement program, and I think that we were
> right.  I don't want the IGF to be anyone's retirement program.
>
> Going back to the reason for this discussion, I hope that the end state of
> what is going on now is an extended IGF with more robust financial support
> from all sectors including the UN.  But as others have pointed out, a
> multiplicity of donors helps to avoid capture by any one sector.
>
> There would be advantages in maintaining some kind of UN link, but taking
> the IGF out from the umbrella of UN patronage.  In particular, it would
> provide more freedom in deciding in which countries the IGF would be held.
> It would do away with the sham security system now being employed during
> the meetings, and it could provide more freedom to use funds in ways more
> effectively.  One would have to balance this against the loss of convening
> power and diplomatic caché that the UN provides now.
>
> I hope that this provides the balance that concerned you.
>
> Speaking of balance, I saw your statement regarding the distribution of
> community informatics folks across developed ad developing countries, and
> the implication for the adequacy of representation from the "civil society"
> sector  It is pretty clear to me that the development side of "the rest of
> us" is poorly represented at the expense of professional civil society
> organizations, but I don't know how to right it.  That's a larger problem.
>
> Regards,
>
> George
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 1:03 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A minor correction...
>
>
> George, neither the UN ICT Task Force, nor the GAID " spent millions of
>
> dollars"... neither of them had any money of their own (nor any sort of
>
> significant contributory budget--Sarbuland to the best of my knowledge
>
> continued to receive his salary through his previous appointment elsewhere
>
> in the Secretariat for example)... Lack of independent funding was one
> among
>
> a huge number of other problems, and not to say that if they had had any
>
> money it would have been well and usefully spent...  but I completely agree
>
> with you on the other part of your statement "by virtue of their existence,
>
> they have pre-empted the center of discussion and have thereby prevented
> the
>
> possible emergence of more innovative and useful."
>
>
> I think these comments should be balanced however, by noting that the
> (quite
>
> limited) contribution of the UNDP, UNESCO and other of the specialized
>
> agencies to ICT4D were for the most quite useful, reasonably well managed
>
> and not particularly wasteful of their or anyone's money.
>
>
> M
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 8:54 AM
>
> To: Nick Ashton-Hart
>
> Cc: manning bill; 1Net List; Erika Mann; Best Bits
>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Re: Draft statement on making IGF
>
> permanent
>
>
> [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]
>
>
> I agree with Nick.  In fact, this is a strong reason not to ask for
>
> permanence for the IGF, but rather to resort to Christian De Larrinaga's
>
> earlier suggestion.  Once something is permanent in the UN System, it will
>
> remain there as the individuals employed by it begin to assert increasingly
>
> strong vested interests in its continuation.  To repeat Christian's
>
> comments:
>
>
> I will only add to my last comment that I don't understand the diplomatic
>
> or institutional implications of calling for "permanent" mandate rather
> than
>
> a "continuing or open-ended mandate".
>
>
> I expect the point behind this proposal is not to enshrine IGF as a
>
> forever fixture on the world but to prolong and enhance the IGF at the UN.
>
> That seems laudable.
>
>
> From a purely semantic perspective I prefer the term "continuing" or "open
>
> ended" to "permanent".  The formation of the IGF Support Association it is
>
> timely to ask the UN to continue its mandate now. So I thank those who have
>
> taken the initiative to write this.
>
>
> Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of
>
> computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the
>
> committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID
>
> from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to
>
> assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars,
>
> and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the
>
> center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of
>
> more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the
>
> IGF within the UN to produce any better results.
>
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>
> <nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
>
>
> Standing bodies - and even institutions - in the UN system rarely ever get
>
> abolished, even when they are clearly overtaken by events.
>
>
> Just for information.
>
>
> On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:30, manning bill <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> it is rare to find a human structure that is “permanent”, so perhaps, in
>
> this case, the term is more a term of art, to deal with the UN.
>
> I can see a possible future in which the IGF has been overcome by
>
> events - in which case, having a permanent, but useless structure becomes
>
> an artifact where zero real work gets done.
>
>
> /bill
>
> PO Box 12317
>
> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>
> 310.322.8102
>
>
> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 9:24, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of
>
> improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will
>
> always be in need of evolution.
>
>
> jeanette
>
>
> Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill:
>
> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is
>
> needed/required/desired.
>
> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?
>
>
>
> /bill
>
> PO Box 12317
>
> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>
> 310.322.8102
>
>
> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin
>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed
>
> (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt"
>
> attachment(s) for more information.
>
>
> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft
>
> statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on
>
> various aspects of the document and made the required revisions.
>
> Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and
>
> formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on
>
> the pad at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
>
> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on
>
> each of these lists)
>
>
> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments
>
> received so far:
>
>
> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects
>
> in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the Generaly
>
> Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could imply a
>
> change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>
>
> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but
>
> that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get
> advise
>
> from the diplomats @ IGF.
>
>
> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN
>
> General Assembly.
>
> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement
>
> from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce
>
> outcomes even if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want
>
> the IGF to produce outcomes)
>
>
> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other
>
> aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of
>
> the IGF
>
>
> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>
>
> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>
>
> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF
>
> local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for it.
>
> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>
>
> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are
>
> inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>
>
> jeanette
>
>
> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>
> (removed cross posting)
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>
>
> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping
>
> the text relatively brief
>
>
> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
>
> development of a sustainable funding model and that this
>
> requires the ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some
>
> text to that end.
>
>
> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of
>
> the IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being
>
> collected on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the
>
> first 9 years.
>
> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some
>
> examples can be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware
>
> of the progress being made on that report and whether it is
>
> available at this point.
>
>
> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit.
>
> I support it.
>
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von
>
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>
> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>
> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the
>
> UN Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a
>
> permanent basis.
>
>
> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to
>
> the IGF and from the NetMundial Statement.
>
>
> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders
>
> and perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>
>
> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>
>
> We have set up a pad for editing:
>
>
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>
>
> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>
>
> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>
>
> Stephanie and Jeanette
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection
>
> Service
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---- The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat"
>
> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus.
>
> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined.
>
>
> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014:
>
> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against
>
> Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat)
>
>
> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902
>
> (message s82F4YpS009135).
>
>
> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it,
>
> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If
>
> this is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the
>
> message.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> IPC Computing Services
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
> 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
>
> email: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
>
> Jabber/GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
>
> PGP Fingerprint: BFD5  DF7 7 2E D5 8 636  92E7  735 7 07 03 7 727
>
> 9B0A  522 6
>
> Skype: nashtonhart
>
> www.internet-ecosystem.org
>
>
> One-click digital business card for your address book:
>
> http://evaunt.me/vEbDF/NickAshton-Hart
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org
>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140902/4d241cbf/attachment-0001.html>