[governance] From the WGIG report to draft for PrepCom - next steps ..?

[Adam Peake]

Robert, Hi.

At 12:53 PM -0400 8/30/05, Robert Guerra wrote:
>With my "logistical" CSB hat on,  I'd like to ask a few questions to 
>the caucus:
>
>1. Subcommittee A meets next week, will they try to start drafting -
>or is it all left to the prepcom?


Not heard anything about this, might get an idea 
from the open consultation on September 6 
afternoon.

Does the sub-committee chair usually get to 
decide on modalities? Sub-committee 1 (which I 
think decided rules for prepcoms) doesn't seem to 
be meeting, so perhaps the chair.  Not sure, the 
agenda and time management plan are confusing.


>2. Does the IG caucus plan to develop a list of key points and/or
>paragraphs ahead of the prepcom?


The contribution responds to the WGIG report on a 
paragraph by paragraph basis.  The key points are 
all in there.  We thought this would be helpful 
if the executive secretariat were to produce a 
compilation of comments.  And, if sub-committee A 
discusses the report paragraph by paragraph then 
we have an outline of our response in place.


>  if not, how will the document
>submitted in Aug be used at all?


I expect the contribution will be used as the 
basis for the caucuses comment at the prepcom. 
Please see my email of August 24. 
<https://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/governance/2005-August/003446.html> 
I asked about this, no reply as yet.

At 6:53 PM +0900 8/24/05, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>I think the statement we submitted for the
>prepcom can be seen as an outline of issues.
>Some specific and near finished (at least as
>caucus opinions), some need work and fleshing
>out. I hope everyone will read the document again
><http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co55.pdf>
>and send comments on specific sections.  Then if
>we have the opportunity to speak on those issues
>we will have a guide as to what to say and what
>not to say. Just being one of the few at the
>prepcom shouldn't give the right to put words and
>ideas forward in the name of the caucus. Ideally
>everything said in prepcom should have some
>grounding in what we have discussed.  Obviously
>this won't always work, issues come up all the
>time that need a reaction, but we should try.
>
>We've time before the prepcom, can add more
>detail to the comments already sent.
>

We have less time now...


>3. Has information on and about the speaking slots available at 
>subcommittee been determined yet ? Will the (default)  5min rule 
>specified in the rules of procedure be used, or has an alternate rule 
>been proposed and accepted by the chair ?


No information that I've heard.  Again something 
that may come up at the consultation on September 
6.

I personally suggested to Amb Khan that he invite 
observers to respond on an issue by issue basis. 
Time at the end of the day often meant commenting 
on parts of the agenda already passed and agreed 
by the govt. session, start of the day meant 
anticipating issues.  Neither very effective.  So 
asked him to consider inviting observers to 
respond on paragraphs/sections of the WGIG report 
during the course of sub-committee discussions. 
Ayesha Hassan suggested something very similar a 
lunch the private sector and civil society had 
with Amb Khan and his staff. However, when this 
was raised during a session at the WGIG report 
launch, govt. of India and Brazil seemed quite 
opposed.

I think observers being invited to comment during 
the course of sub-committee discussions would be 
the best situation for us.  Perhaps someone could 
be asked to raise this during the consultation on 
September 6.


>4.  Should a contingency plan be developed in the case that  part or
>all of the IG negotiations become "closed" ?

We've been clear for months that:

At 1:13 AM +0100 2/23/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>Regarding follow up of WGIG's final report, 
>negotiations must be conducted "in an open and 
>inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for 
>the full and active participation of 
>governments, the private sector and civil 
>society from both developing and developed 
>countries" as stated in the Geneva declaration 
>of principles. The final negotiated document 
>MUST reflect and honour the multi-stakeholder 
>process that produced it.


This was agreed by civil society at prepcom 2. 
So if discussions are closed we ask why they are 
failing to honour the Geneva declaration.  Call 
the press, scream how obscene it is that the 
closed door UN is trying to take over the 
Internet, and similar hyperbole (so long it's 
enough to make Sen Coleman blush with pride 
<http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/96401>)

    :-)

We also suggested 3 working groups to look at

on oversight,
on issues of the root zone (USG)
and to discuss and new forum

These must also be open.

Thanks,

Adam




>regards,
>
>
>--
>Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
>Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
>WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe
>Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance