[governance] karenb comments: IGC statements

[karen banks]

dear all

i haven't had time to do more than read through the threads in 
response to the statements, and read through what i think are last 
versions of statements.

A file is attached with all 3 statements together (simply offered as 
i put it together for my own purposes), gathered together from the 
threads today..

i did a search and replace on (new) delhi and delhi (careful when you 
do this as you'll catch one legitimate new delhi in relation to the 
comment about nitin desai and the recent new delhi meeting) - and 
replaced with hyderabad

APC won't be submitting written statements apart from the report and 
recommendations on access i've already posted here- but that 
statement does contains one recommendation that the caucus statement 
also advocates - that of working groups - and specifically, in 
relation to access.

The swiss are proposing a working group on a development agenda for 
IG  (which the caucus is supporting) - and in general, apc will 
support the modality of working groups, as part of a process, that 
supports thematic work in the IGF - as outlined in our statement at 
the end of the Rio IGF (extract below)

In addition to the general proposal, we will try to provide more 
detail as to how WGs might work in practice, how they could be 
convened and operate - working with the access WG as a prototype

3. Convening of "IGF working groups" (full statement at : 
http://intgovforum.org/rio_reports/apc_statement_igf2007_EN.pdf)

APC recommends that the IGF uses the format of the Working Group on 
Internet Governance (WGIG, established during the World Summit on the 
Information Society), or bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task 
Force (IETF) to convene working groups to address complex issues that 
emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals 
with the necessary expertise and drawn from different stakeholder 
groups. These groups can then engage specific issues in greater 
depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop recommendations that 
can be communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed 
to specific institutions.

These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed 
recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions 
for action from the individuals in the working group.

These working groups have a different role from the self-organised 
dynamic coalitions which we believe should continue. Dynamic 
coalitions have a broader mandate and are informal in nature. We see 
IGF working groups as differing from dynamic coalitions in that they 
should particular challenges rather than a general issue area. They 
will also have a degree of accountability and an obligation to report 
that dynamic coalitions do not have.

Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups on 
the following issues might be valuable:
    * Working group on self and co-regulation in internet governance
    * Working group on business models for access
    * Working group on a development agenda for internet governance.
The need for working groups will only be apparent when the event 
report has been finalised. We propose that the IGF secretariat and 
the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) consider this proposal at that time.

parminder - you asked about how to get comments in on some kind of 
'code of participation in IG processes' - you're referring to the 
press release from APC, CoE and UNECE last year?

>>>>The Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive 
>>>>Communications propose a code for public participation in Internet governance
>>>>
>>>>RIO de JANEIRO -- Intergovernmental and civil society 
>>>>organisations propose a self-regulatory mechanism to foster 
>>>>participation, access to information and transparency in Internet 
>>>>governance at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de 
>>>>Janeiro on 12 November 2007.

full statement at: http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569

we are moving ahead with this.. and anriette will be able to update 
people in geneva..  but if this some thing the caucus would like to 
support in principle (and get involved in in practice between now and 
IGF Hyderabad) then maybe you can simply make a verbal intervention 
to support the proposal, or express interest in the proposal, at the 
appropriate time..

=====

in a verbal intervention, we will also comment on themes - supporting 
the themes of transparency and accountability and sustainable 
development and IG, amongst others, and comments on the 
reconstitution of the MAG, which wil largely echo and support the 
caucus statement on this (and also noted in our statement last year) 
- in fact, pretty ,much all of the proposals from our statement last 
year still stand..

a few brief comments on the caucus statements

I: themes - is the caucus not now supporting the IISD proposal for a 
main theme of sustainable development and internet governance?

II: formats - no comments, largely support

III: MAG - what about the question of continuity of the chair? i 
thought i saw this somewhere, but maybe not in the caucus statement?

karen 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080223/771bd9f0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IG Caucus Statements for IGF Consultation.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 112128 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080223/771bd9f0/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance