<div dir="ltr">Hi Andrew and all,<div><br></div><div>After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.</div>
<div><br></div><div>First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. </div>
<div><br></div><div>- It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all along. In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is correct...</div><div><br></div><div>- I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC produce recommendations and send them to other organizations: </div>
<div>a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; </div><div>b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the subject would not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional international regimes? </div>
<div>c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? </div><div>d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali). </div>
<div>e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary funding to the IGF?</div>
<div>f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully</div>
<div><br></div><div>- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. </div>
<div><br></div><div>- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.</div>
<div><br></div><div>That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions.</div><div>Thanks again for the good start</div><div>Marília</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>
<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org" target="_blank">Andrew@gp-digital.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word"><div>Hi everyone </div><div><br></div><span><div style="border-right:medium none;padding-right:0in;padding-left:0in;padding-top:3pt;text-align:left;font-size:11pt;border-bottom:medium none;font-family:Calibri;border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid;padding-bottom:0in;border-left:medium none">
<div class="im"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Marianne Franklin <<a href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:57<br>
</div><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> andrew Puddephatt <<a href="mailto:andrew@gp-digital.org" target="_blank">andrew@gp-digital.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>, "<bestbits@lists. net>" <<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><div class="im">
<br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance<br></div></div><div><br></div><div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Andrew and all<br>
<br>I’m heading offline for a week now and have had little substantive response to the document below. If there are any comments could you send them through to me by February 6th – after that we’ll consult about turning this into a submission in time for the deadline of March 1st.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="im">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,55,65)">Andrew
Puddephatt</span></b><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">|
</span><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,55,65)">GLOBAL
PARTNERS</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,55,65)">
DIGITAL<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,55,65)">Executive
Director</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(255,33,38)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(127,127,127)">Development
House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(127,127,127)">T:
<a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336" value="+442075490336" target="_blank">+44 (0)20 7549 0336</a> | M: <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597" value="+447713399597" target="_blank">+44 (0)771 339 9597</a> | Skype:
andrewpuddephatt</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(127,127,127)"><br>
<b><a href="http://gp-digital.org" target="_blank">gp-digital.org</a></b><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p></div></div><div>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Shortly before Xmas Global Partners
Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to the
survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking advantage of
the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same
week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT,
CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project. The
results of our conversation are set out below and in a word
attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey and
other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked
at:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span>The case for reform<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span>Possible criteria for
reforming IG governance<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span>An evaluation of the
different proposals for reform<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span>Preliminary
conclusions.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our main preliminary conclusion was,
after considering the criteria we set out for an IG system,
that a <u>dispersed system of governance</u> has more
benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of
governance. We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining a
distributed governance regime, but that it should be
strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new
coordinating function and a process for ad hoc
issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with
new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order
to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed
about the options and risks here. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is going to be a complex process to
try and co-ordinate a response from then list. To simplify
things I suggest that people submit three categories of
comments.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. There will be those who fundamentally
disagree with the approach put forward. I suggest that they
develop their own approach find their own collaborators and
work on their own ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Those who broadly agree but who have
substantive comments to make which require further
discussion. I will then collect these put together an
online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss
then in a structured fashion.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Those who broadly agree but have
preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can live
with the differences. These I will collect and try and
resolve through e-mail conversation.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We’ve spent a lot of energy on the
question of representation so it would be good to focus on
what it is we would say if we were represented. And
although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by
March 1<sup>st</sup>, this position is one we can develop
and utilise in other forums. If you have other suggestins
on how to pull together different comments, do let me know.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew Puddephatt<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Internet Governance:
proposals for reform </span></u></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">***Contributors: Access, Article
19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">In an effort to work towards a
joint civil society proposal for internet governance
reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming
Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of
Internet Governance and other relevant forums – Global
Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group
of civil society organisations.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">In order to brainstorm and report
back as clearly as possible, the group worked through four
stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses
and the most prominent civil society proposals for
reforming the IG institutional framework that the
contributors were aware of: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span>1.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">What is the case for reform of IG
and do we have a common understanding of what the problems
with the existing arrangements are?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span>2.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">If there is a case for reform
what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that
should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to
human rights and social justice? </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span>3.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">How do the various proposals for
reform stack up against these criteria – what are their
strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks and
benefits.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span>4.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">What are the crucial elements of
a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire
but would be willing to compromise around. Considering the
previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the
group present that we could share with the wider BB
community to enrich the approach? </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The below draft represents a
summary of the group analysis and discussion. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt">1) Case for reform</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Reviewing and building on the
survey responses, the group identified the following
criticisms of the current IG arrangements: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">There is an imbalance of power
with many people and groups, particularly from the global
south, feeling marginalised.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">There is insufficient diversity
of voices, including gender and language.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Development issues, as set out in
the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately
tackled.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The IGF has not satisfactorily
delivered on all elements of its mandate. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Multistakeholderism remains
poorly defined which creates difficulty in its
implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be
increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">There are jurisdictional issues
which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful
ICT companies to take important human rights/public
interest decisions. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">There is an absence of forums
where jurisdictional issues or global public policies
relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means
governments are falling back on different national laws
and technical responses which encroach on the global and
distributed functioning of the internet.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Furthermore because of the issues
with the current regime, many governments are
pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives
to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which
are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder
or global. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Some governments are increasingly
asserting a doctrine of “state sovereignty” on the global
internet. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">There is a lack of clarity about
how or where decisions are made – there is a plurality of
forums with unclear relationships between them. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The internet is unusual as a
communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as
an international medium, and its international character
and the benefits of free expression and access to
information that it brings need to be preserved. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">There is a unique property to the
internet that requires global cooperation and coordination
to make it effective.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt">2) Criteria for Internet
Governance </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">NB - The group recognised that
there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking
at high level principles. The current suggested baseline
for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles.
Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be
potential to unite around a core set of principles. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">After some discussion, the group
set out criteria that they felt were an essential element
of any democratic international governance system. The aim
was to find criteria that could apply to any system of
international governance rather than looking for criteria
that only applied to the internet – in order to avoid the
pitfalls of “internet exceptionalism”. Rather, in a
globalised world, where there are generally very weak
lines of accountability between a government's positions
on the international stage and its electorate back at
home, open international spaces with broad-based
participation can be important opportunities for bringing
international decisions much closer to citizens across the
world. In this context, the group found that the
international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could
have implications for wider international governance
systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that
these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed
reform would probably not meet all the criteria.
Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful
framework for assessing any proposed changes. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The following mutually-supporting
criteria were found necessary for the governance of
complex global phenomena: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">a)</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <b>Processes</b> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Transparent and comprehensible:
it should be possible for anyone to understand how it
works and how things happen/decisions are made; </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Accountable: internal and
external accountability process should exist, including a
way of challenging decisions; </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Effective: in that it can deliver
whatever it is meant to deliver </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Adaptable: so that it can take
account of new innovations and developments in the field.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">b) Participation</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Inclusive and open: not be a
small exclusive club, but open to many. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">All necessary points of view are
included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Possessing the necessary
expertise to make informed decisions </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Meaningful participation: anybody
affected by decision should be able to impact upon
decision-making processes. The group recognised that this
would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based
decision making. But where consensus was not possible
there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks,
such as decision-making by majority vote. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">c) Underlying Values</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Human rights values should be at
the core of any governance process and outcomes. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Driven by global public interest
(motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global
public good). </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt">3) Evaluating Proposals for
Reform </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The next stage was to look at
various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn
from the survey and other sources. The list of models
analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the
brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their
descriptions - they are indicative only. More details
about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at
the end of the document.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">UN Committee Model</span></u></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Model proposed by the Indian
government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member
states, with four advisory committees made up of
different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have
mandate over global internet-related public policy
issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for
Change has also promoted this model with the exception
that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in
a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board
formed of technical experts nominated by governments.</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Multi-stakeholder
Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy
Malcolm)</span></u></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">A new
multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under
the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of
equal numbers from civil society, private sector,
government and technical/academic communities, and
observers from international organisations). The MIPC
would take up issues forwarded to it by rough
consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to
agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on
that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding,
but could call for the development of binding rules by
other institutions where appropriate, which would
generally be at the national level. </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Multi-stakeholder
Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang
Kleinwachter)</span></u></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">A new
multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC)
attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly
to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be
a coordinating body – identifying issues raised at the
IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to
address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism
(e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical
organisation, a combination) or a new one. New
mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working
groups with mandates to address specific issues by
rough consensus. </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Distributed
Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by
Internet Democracy Project)</span></u></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><i><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">This model also envisions a coordinating
body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however
the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD
instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in
this model be one of a clearing house only. In
addition, this model suggests that, where possible,
the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline
for deciding which pre-existing institution has a
mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an
appropriate institution is identified, this
institution would then be responsible for developing
an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to
that issue.</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Self-forming
multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated
by Internet & Jurisdiction Project) </span></u></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Processes can
self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific
internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption
of technical standards: the better a solution the more
likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of
voluntary adoption, these processes should involve
experts and powerful players, such as key governments.
However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s
model appears to be more of a ‘proof of concept’ that
could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the
models outlined above. </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Looking at the UN Committee model
and applying the criteria above, the model has real
strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling
anyone to understand how it works and how things
happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the
effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed
policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed
mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed
about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as
that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a
central role for governments, and based on experience of
similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated
by geo-political interests. As a single body with
oversight – potentially – of all public policy issues
related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk
that the body would not have the requisite expertise to
make informed decisions across all issues. While it could
draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how
they would be composed and whether any fixed group of
people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of
policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder
groups would also create risks that those impacted by
decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape
them. Furthermore there was a question over the
feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding to
all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a
few times per year. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Other proposals for reform, while
varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater
role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these
models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less
central role as a clearing house for identifying issues
which need tackling and for each issue process to inform,
engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community.
One advantage of these models was seen to be the
possibility for enabling pathways from the national
through regional to global level discussion and back down
by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs.
Another advantage was seen to be that building on the
strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity
and accountability to the wider internet community. There
were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn’t
satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate.
For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their
mandate and agenda from IGF discussions – this would
require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the
IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">A key feature of most of the
above models, which the group strongly supported, was the
introduction of a new coordinating function in the current
internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup
of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by
the group. The advantage of these models was seen to be
the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared
to the current situation) about how public policy issues
are addressed. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">In looking at these models, they
also all maintain a distributed approach where many
institutions are involved in different aspects of
internet-related public policy. The group specifically
supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate
processes for separate issues for several reasons.
Distributing power was seen as protection against
power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the
more centralised approach in the </span>UN Committee
model <span style="font-size:12.0pt">– and to a lesser
extent Jeremy’s MIPC model. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">A distributed model was seen as
having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary
based on the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and
adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment.
However, a degree of institutionalisation of any
distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract
power imbalances. For example, self-forming
multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage
those without power and resources.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">There were, however, questions
about the effectiveness of the distributed models as they
retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The
UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance
frameworks making it easier to understand. The other
models involve new and innovative ways of working. The
group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project
may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an
approach.<s> </s></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt">4) Existing Institutions</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The group looked at a strand of
suggestions around sustaining the current structures,
particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an
extent that would allow issues with the current system to
be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen
alongside the ideas above considering the overall
governance regime.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">IGF </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The group looked at proposals for
improving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were
a number of areas where necessary reforms were identified:
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Providing stronger leadership;</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">A better funded and supported
secretariat;</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Stronger links between the IGF
(and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in
the dispersed internet governance system;</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Clearing house function;</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">More output-orientated; </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Connecting the global annual IGF
to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs
to ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern
raised at a national and regional level finding their way
to global consideration and back down to the regional and
national levels;</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Widening participation (esp.
unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil
society, high level policy-makers, staff of all
institutions involved in internet-related policy making,
small to medium businesses);</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Reforming the Multistakeholder
Advisory Group.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ICANN </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">In the case of ICANN, the group
felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the
privilege of the US which was seen as important though
largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it
might involve both location and structure. However, the
group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the
different options - and timeframes - for doing so in order
to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate
solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work
on this issue.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt">5) Preliminary conclusions </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">From the response to the survey
and by analysing various alternative models using the
criteria set out above, there seems to be potential to
come to a rough consensus combining a number of ideas
commanding broad support among civil society. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Dispersed vs. centralised</span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">A key point was whether a single
decision making space would be more appropriate versus a
dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could
be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be
easier to navigate but a dispersed system had fewer risks
for political or corporate capture and enabled issue-based
expertise (including from civil society) to engage on
specific issues. <b>On balance we felt the risk/benefit
of both approaches weighed more on the side of a
dispersed model of governance</b>. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Broad participation & role
of reformed IGF</span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Another key point of agreement
was in looking for ways to involve as broad as possible
communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an
important space for achieving this. For instance, a
reformed IGF could act as a central space for learning
about and feeding into all internet-related public
policies within a dispersed system. <b>The reform could
entail: a stronger leadership, a better supported
secretariat, stronger links between the IGF and all
other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong
link to national and regional IGFs, more
output-orientated, widening participation and reforming
the MAG.</b> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">A new co-ordinating function</span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">There was general interest in the
idea of creating a new coordinating function to facilitate
the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related policy
making within a distributed model. All agreed that the
coordinating group should be multi-stakeholder but there
was no decision on where that group should be constituted
(e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). <b>A new
coordinating function is needed. More discussion is
needed about the form, location and processes by which
that function is exercised. </b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Issue-specific multistakeholder
working groups </span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">When a new issue arises that
needs a policy response, there was broad agreement that
these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder
working groups were developed to deal with specific
issues. There wasn’t a decision yet on where/how those
working groups should be formed (i.e. by different
institutions with mandate over different issues, by a
working group tied to CSTD, by a working group tied to
IGF). Also, on decision making there was broad agreement
that the groups would ideally work by consensus with the
option to shift to another process where necessary and
appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. to
draft a treaty). <b>New internet policy issues should be
dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working
groups which are issue specific.</b> <b>More discussion
is needed about the form, location and processes of
those multi-stakeholder working groups.</b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ICANN reform</span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">A reformed ICANN – details to
be worked on further.</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt">6) List of Sources</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:7.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,55,65)">Andrew
Puddephatt</span></b><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">|
</span><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,55,65)">GLOBAL
PARTNERS</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,55,65)">
DIGITAL</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,55,65)">Executive
Director</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(127,127,127)">Development
House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(127,127,127)">T:
<a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336" value="+442075490336" target="_blank">+44 (0)20 7549 0336</a> | M: <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597" value="+447713399597" target="_blank">+44 (0)771 339 9597</a> | Skype:
andrewpuddephatt</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(127,127,127)"><br>
<b><a href="http://gp-digital.org" target="_blank">gp-digital.org</a></b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></span></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><b>Marília Maciel</b></div>
<div><font color="#444444">Pesquisadora Gestora</font></div><div><font color="#444444">Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - </font><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">FGV Direito Rio</span></div><div><font color="#444444"><br>
</font></div><div><font color="#666666">Researcher and Coordinator</font></div><div><font color="#666666">Center for Technology & Society - </font><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">FGV Law School</span></div><div>
<font color="#666666"><a href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts" target="_blank">http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts</a><br>
</font></div><div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666">DiploFoundation associate</font></div><div><font color="#666666"><a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu" target="_blank">www.diplomacy.edu</a></font></div>
<div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><br><div><br></div></div></div>
</div>