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

kilnam chon chonkn at gmail.com
Wed Sep 3 05:34:17 UTC 2014 

george,

i agree with you mostly.  let me add the following issues to compliment
your messages;

1. Why UN?
    it may be a good time to review fundamental issues on IGF including
"UN".  IGF is the only internet organization under UN.  is this a good idea?
we may look into other topics such as environment as a case study.
Montreal Protocol on ozone layer depletion was established outside of UN
in 1980s, whereas IPCC on climate change was established within UN in
2000s.  which model would work better for IGF in long run?

2. 5 year, 10 year, permanent
    i agree with george, brian and others on the term. the important thing
is periodical serious reviews such as every 5 years.  otherwise, IGF may
end of a dinosaur, i.e., an irrelevant organization.

3. finance
    we need to address finance when we talk on long term issues on IGF as
this is hindering IGF activity severely.

4. output
    we have been discussing on "lack of output at IGF".  what output(s) do
we expect from IGF to compliment other internet (governance) organizations?

hope to see good discussion on the above issues as the IGF's term would be
extended this fall.

chon


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:11 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140903/72181d7e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list