Programme for fellows for Day 4 – 6.12.2008

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by NKURUNZIZA JEAN PAUL on December 6, 2008 at 2:34am

NKURUNZIZA JEAN PAUL’S PROGRAM : DAY 4: 6th December 2008
10:00 to 12:00 : Emerging issues : Main room
14:00 to 16:00 : Taking stock and the way forward
16: 30 : Departure back to the hotel before going to the airport with the shuttle of 18:00
18:00 Departure to the airport

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Judi on December 6, 2008 at 5:05am

10:00 Simulation
15.30- Evaluation
18:00 Farewell Party

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Maureen Hilyard on December 7, 2008 at 4:21am

My Highlights of Day 4 at IGF in Hyderabad

After the briefing, I uploaded my reports from Day 3 because I had been unable to connect onto the internet at the cyber apartment since yesterday. So uploads and checking emails from work and family kept me busy until we went to the negotiation simulation taken by Jovan and Kishan Rama, an experienced Diplomat and now Diplo tutor. The negotiation scenario was an interesting experience and gave us all a chance to chair a major roundtable meeting of heads of state while at the same time represent these noble personages to negotiate international, regional or national frameworks for key areas of internet governance. Our group identified some relationship issues between the USA, India and Civil Society. There were some intense discussions between Emmanuel, Marielia and Mwende and it was difficult at times to believe that we were not in a genuine discussion of some very important issues involving these countries. Because this was a Diplo session with others who might have been interested in the workshop, we weren't constrained by time so that we didn't realise that we had spent nearly 4 hours on this valuable task. I am sure that everyone came away with some important lessons learned about diplomacy and negotiation skills. After lunch it wasn't too much longer before we were required for an evaluation of our participation at the IGF2008. I cannot think of one person who hasn't benefited from being at the forum, but not just by being here but also by participating in some activity. Diplo participants certainly made their presence felt in the workshops they attended, and more so if they were involved in the presentation of the workshop itself. The farewell 'party' at the Novotel bar was an opportunity for people to relax for a short time before the bus arrived to take the travellers back to the hotel to prepare for their homeward journeys. I thank ITU and its partner UNDP for giving me this opportunity to attend this international event with the Diplo Foundation - to meet the special people with whom we have worked during the year and to make new friends and contacts. It was an amazing experience.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Danny Nagdev on December 8, 2008 at 11:29am

Report: December 6, 2008

I could attend the following sessions:

1) 09:00 - 10:00 Workshop 84 - The role and mandate of the IGF
This was an interesting topic where the panelists contradicted each others views. Few panelists were of an opinion that the IGF has lost its way (in discussions) and it was formed to help in policy making over Internet issues. It was pointed that IGF should take a issue centric approach rather than institution centric approach. Others argued that IGF is the best platform for multi-stakeholder interaction and we should not look at curbing this and make it result oriented.

2) 10:00 – 13:15 Negotiations
This was a wonderful session where I learnt the following:
a) Types of Negotiations – ZOPA, BATNA, WInSets etc.
b) During Negotiations do not speak unpleasant things even if its true, look to find common criteria, Kellog Method – Listen to other side by putting yourself in others shoes, express your position clearly
c) More details about negotiations can be found on Harward Project on Negotiations and the Book named ‘Getting to Yes’ by Fisher and Puri.
By participating in the Negotiations, I understood how complex it could be to understand others and get them on common grounds. Also the way a chairman should function was clear.

I also attended the last session ” 15:00- 17:30 - Taking Stock and the way forward” but there was nothing much in it which appealed to me.

I would like to thank all the Diplo friends who made the IGF Hyderabad experience wonderful for me.

Please give me feedback over the reports made by me.

Love, Danny Nagdev

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mwende Njiraini on December 10, 2008 at 9:26am

09:00 - 10:30 Workshop 84: The role and mandate of the IGF

Main success of IGF
• Success of multi-stakeholder forum that provides a informal and flexible structure for engagement.
• Regional and national meetings such as the Kenya IGF, UK IGF and EAIGF are creating more opportunities for exchange of information, focus on development and issues in the governance realm. These meetings should be fostered.
• Capacity building at an individual and national level
• Sharing of best practices
• Enabled participation on the demand side
• Multilingualism – local language use extends access
• Human rights advocacy– formation of the global network initiative (GNI)
• Formation of the multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) that is dynamic and flexible
• Discussion of issues relating to the environment and sustainability
• Avenue for information sharing between different regions

Criticisms of the IGF
• Idea of IGF developed by the civil society – the forum when established would not issue recommendations or guidelines (not a policy conference) – consequently maintaining the status quo – this however is not what the civil society had bargained for.
• The forum has not provided an equal footing of civil society participants with government and business
• The GNI is not a multi-stakeholder in nature as governments do not buy into its outputs
• Meaningful change is required in the MAG and secretariat – the MAG should be more representative and accountable – representatives should be nominated, while the secretariat should be accountable to the MAG
• The IGF should develop policy proposals as well as briefing material to facilitators
• The plenary sessions are a waste of time – instead small group discussions on specific issues should be organised to make policy proposals/recommendations to the MAG for formalization.
• Recommendations approved by the MAG (which is representative of all stakeholders)
• There is a need for a re-look of the mandate of the IGF as given by the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
• Format of the IGF needs to be changed to increase interactive between the audience and panel – sitting arrangements should be changed
• Remote participation and documentation needs to be improved
• Need for discussion on cross cutting theme of development including issues such as
o Migration to digital technologies
o Frequency licensing/frequency policy
o Creating access
• The phrase workshop is a misnomer
• Need for a feedback mechanism

Challenges
• Continued support and funding – should be provided by all stakeholders
• Avoid capture by one stakeholder group
• Capacity building for new attendees and creation of advanced sessions for more experienced participants

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mwende Njiraini on December 10, 2008 at 9:29am

1030 -1300 Diplo Session: IGF’08 Negotiation Simulation
Facilitated by Ambassador Kishan S Rana and Dr. Jovan Kurbalija

Importance -?

Objectives
Issues of conflict
Common interest
Cannot be solved unilaterally
Commitment to issue
Willingness to compromise
Goal – concede to what you want and

Concepts

• ZOPA – zone of possible agreement - range within which agreement possible
• BATNA– best alternative to a negotiated agreement – threshold below which one will not go not worthwhile
• Win-sets same as zopa
• Ripe moment – in a complex negotiation – time when negotiation can be concluded – time when there is a meeting of minds –

Negotiations implicitly involves trust

Stages
- preparation
- negotiation
- pre-negotiation
- follow

Harvard method principle negotiation
- project of negotiation power – Harvard university – whole range of negotiations – Books recommended “Getting to yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury and “Getting past no”


Four cardinal principles of negotiation
- separate people from the problem – don’t personalize an issue – build trust – never be caught telling a lie – someone should not push you to a corner
- behind adversarial position may lie common interest e.g. in the case of the IGF – building a secure internet
- trying to share pie -only looks to one dimension - search options – creativity encouraged - common search to secure agreement
- look to criteria that may offer solution


Meetings and chairmanship
- preparation – training everyone on how to chair a meeting for example after the Chec republic Slovakia republic chairman ship of the European
- every meeting has core group that runs the show – observe the body language
- observe and identify them
- you want to join that core group gradually
- study body language dynamics listen
- join drafting group learn the rules procedure and how to manipulate draft
- chair must constantly monitor mood meeting
- chair – authority and tact – should not offend but more move along
- anticipate problems before they arise observe
- invest in relationships win trust esp of key problems = main capital gained
- master the show

Questions/Discussions
• How do you separate people from the problem? – try create a relationship through common interest e.g. music – make it clear that you don’t agree – don’t take it personality – if you don’t agree don’t retaliate personality – junior members of a delegation are invaluable in negotiations – “float a balloon” – because they don’t speak with authority.

• Negotiations largely take place in the corridors and during coffee – its important to realize when negotiations are a formality – however each case is unique – realize when you are at the end of the road.

• What happens when there is a stronger party in the negotiation process? – Weakness and power are in the eye of the beholder – ‘sufficient incentive’ –for small country apply leverage in a negotiation – the example of the treaty between Mauritius and India on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

• How are cultural differences managed during negotiations?
o Cultural differences always exist, however negotiations utilise a common language – English – Translation of negotiations in different languages may be available – however the English text is considered the authoritative version/definitive text/principle text.
o It is important to master the English language as an adjunct to your skills – for example be involved in the drafting group
o There is usually an established common code of conduct during negotiations.

• Chairmanship is a skill that is learnt – the chair has to be a member of the group.


Simulation Exercise on Internet Governance
Objective – reaching a zone of possible agreement between the USA, G77, India, China, Russia, the Business Community and Civil society before 2011 on key IG issues including:
• The form/name of document
o Press communiqué
o Chairman’s statement
o Declaration of principles
o Code of practice
o Operational declaration
o Framework convention
o Substantive convention
o Formal treaty
• Net neutrality
o Single internet
o Mixed system
 Regular internet as public facility
 Private internet
o Multiple internet (no regulation; market driven)
• Cyber security
o Bilateral
o G8 framework
o G20 framework
o Regional
o Global
• Jurisdiction/dispute resolution
o Regular courts
o Public arbitrations
o Private arbitrations
• Content policy
o National
o Regional
o Global

Main lesson learnt: it is important to bargain/trade-off in order to reach the ZOPA otherwise a negotiation that is not included could mean a win to another participant.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Issaka KANAZOE on December 10, 2008 at 5:51pm

Day 4 report.

Day 4 was the last day of IGF and I have interested on the main session about emerging essues.
After the daily briefing of Diplo, I attended to the main session on emerging issues. For this purpose, discussions focus on how internet will be tomorrow? New actors, new technology such Web2 and such internet of things, legal issues, policy orientation, etc.. All recognized the critical importance of internet in our today life everywhere across the world. Several panelist gives their view on what that must be take to account to preserve internet: Raghavan P.h.d. from India, Stephen Lau, CEO of EDS Electronic Data Systems (Hong Kong); Herbert Heitmann, Head of Global Communications at SAP AG etc… Finally all recognized that, security, sustainable internet development and reaching the next billion remain high important and critical issues.

The most interesting part of this day is the simulation case did by diplo in international negotiation. After a wonderful presentation of diplomacy negotiation by Ambassador Kishan S Rana and Dr. Jovan Kurbalija, the Diplo member was divided in 2 groups. Each group has to negotiate on emerging issues on Internet governance: There was 9 players: Civil society, Business sector, India, Group 77, Russian Federation, China, and USA. Each player has to defend its interest on the following issues: Form/name of document to issued, Net neutrality, Cybersecrity, Jurisdiction/ dispute resolution and Content policy. Players must negotiate to get a consensual agreement that reflect their own interest.
This negotiation game gives me awareness on the coming days in international diplomacy that we be complexes, with important stakes interest.

Issaka

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Charity Gamboa-Embley on December 11, 2008 at 9:01am

December 6: 11-12:30 THE CHALLENGES OF INTERNET OF THINGS

This particular session is more of a challenge for me personally, as I have to admit, I only know bits and pieces of the technical items pertaining to Internet infrastructure. At this particular time, I felt like I was attending a class and very proud to be in one since I have Robert Kahn as the lecturer.

Robert E. Kahn, founder of the Internet and president of CNRI (Corporation of National Research Initiatives), talked about the role of Identifiers and the Handle System. He explained what “Internet of Things” is all about. He said it’s irrelevant as to how you define it but he mentioned it as a resolution system that translates these identifiers into something you want to identify. The “thing” might be a physical object you just want to learn about that object and its manifestation.

Now basically, a handle is an identifier. Identifiers are important because they manage information on the Net over a very long time. Even if you take it out, it will still be there. They are important in dealing with very large amounts of information over time. When information finds its location and even the underlying systems may change over time. Identifiers are important in respecting and protecting rights, interests and values. Over-all, identifiers are just plain important in managing networks themselves in general.

So what happens when things change in platforms? The Handle System would have one component of one larger object which is an attempt to re-think of what the Internet would look like.

As for the architecture, I was able to just pinpoint a simple understanding of it as being on a client and resource discovery segment. The resource discovery would be metadata registries in lieu of traditional search engines or catalogues.

For the Handle Resolution, the client is the handle system which is a collection of handle services. Here is a typical presentation that Mr. Kahn gave:

Handles resolve to typed data

Handle - 10.123/456
Data Type - URL
Index - 1
Handle Data - http://acme.com/

Handle - 10.123/456
Data Type - URL
Index - 2
Handle Data - http://a-books.com

Handle - 10.123/456
Data Type - RAP
Index - 9
Handle Data - acme/repository

As far as my mind could suffice to comprehend all these technical jargons, I can sum up the following about “Internet of Things.” “Things” may refer to physical objects or even conceptual entities. Each may have a digital presence on the Internet in the form of “state information” – which may lead to other things or specific “digital objects.” Within the handle system, the identifiers would resolve to the “state information.”

Whew! I hope I managed to put some perspective into all the notes I have typed. After all, I have Mr. Robert E. Kahn as my “lecturer.” :)

▶ Reply to This