<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>IGF Development Agenda Workshop Proposal</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Joining the parade...<BR>
<BR>
BD<BR>
<BR>
---------<BR>
<BR>
Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme.<BR>
<BR>
The full name of the workshop, which does not fit the space allocation on the form, would be,<BR>
<BR>
"Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance"<BR>
<BR>
In recent years, developing countries, civil society organizations, and concerned academics have worked to promote broad “development agendas” in the international institutions and policy debates dealing with such issues as trade, debt, and intellectual property. But in the field of Internet governance, no parallel initiative has taken shape. Development concerns were raised during the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, but they were not systematically explored as elements of a holistic, multi-institutional agenda. Moreover, there was no broad consensus as to what kinds of governance initiatives would most directly promote development, as opposed to satisfying political objectives. And in the post-WSIS period, development generally has been discussed in relation to capacity building, rather than substantive policies and institutional design. To help fill the void, this workshop would foster multistakeholder dialogue on the potential utility and outlines of a development agenda, and would explore such questions as: <BR>
<BR>
• What are the potential risks and rewards of pursuing a holistic development agenda? What challenges would need to be met in order to have a positive, constructive dialogue?<BR>
• Are there lessons to be learned from development agendas in other international arenas? <BR>
• In which of the many arrangements involved in governing the Internet and its usage can we identify specific substantive and procedural measures that promote development? Can we identify good or even best practices of generalizable applicability? What could governmental and nongovernmental mechanisms learn from each other in this regard?<BR>
• In which of the many Internet governance arrangements can we identify specific substantive and procedural barriers to development? If such barriers can be clearly identified, are there functionally and politically feasible options for reform?<BR>
• What is the relationship between development and the implementation of the WSIS principles, e.g. transparency and inclusive participation in Internet governance? How might cooperation be enhanced in this arena? <BR>
• How could a development agenda best be taken forward given the distributed architecture of Internet governance? What roles could the Internet Governance Forum and related groupings play in such an effort?<BR>
<BR>
The workshop would build on the research papers and panel discussion on the same topic to be presented at the 11 November Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) symposium <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/GigaNet07CFP.pdf;">http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/GigaNet07CFP.pdf;</a> and on the February 2007 brainstorming meeting held at the Graduate Institute for International Studies in Geneva <a href="http://hei.unige.ch/psio/fichiers/drake_report_14-02-07.doc.">http://hei.unige.ch/psio/fichiers/drake_report_14-02-07.doc.</a> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity.<BR>
<BR>
• Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance, Program for the Study of International Organization(s), Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva [academic/civil society]<BR>
<BR>
• Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government]<BR>
<BR>
• Brazilian Internet Steering Committee [government, business, civil society, academia]<BR>
<BR>
• Consultative Committee on UN Information Technology, China Association for Science and Technology [academic/civil society]<BR>
<BR>
• Internet Society of China [technical community]<BR>
<BR>
• Association for Progressive Communications [civil society]<BR>
<BR>
• Center for Global Communications, International University of Japan [academic/civil society]<BR>
<BR>
Other co-sponsors may be added later.<BR>
<BR>
The event will adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity, in two ways. First, the co-sponsors are from four stakeholder communities: government, business, civil society/academia, and technical. They are geographically diverse, and include individuals and organizations from the USA, Switzerland, Brazil, China, South Africa/global, and Japan. Second, the speakers on the panel will be equally diverse, if not more so, in both dimensions. Probably there will representatives from most of of the co-sponsoring organizations, as well as people from other stakeholder groups like international organizations and business. A variety of perspectives will be represented on the panel.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important?<BR>
<BR>
In the course of the WSIS and IGF processes, there have been frequent invocations of the linkages between Internet governance and development. But invocations are not the same thing as serious analysis and focused dialogue, nor are political demands necessarily the same thing as actual development promoting measures. In reality, there has been no effort to systematically parse the issues in order to identify strengths and weaknesses, challenges and opportunities, best practices to build on and missteps to avoid in the conduct of Internet governance from a development perspective. Given that development is a central guiding concern of the Tunis Agenda and the IGF mandate, beginning to fill the gaps between Internet governance and development is patently important.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Question 4: Describe the workshop’s conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.<BR>
<BR>
Many paragraphs of the Tunis agenda link development and Internet governance. Four are particularly relevant:<BR>
<BR>
31. We recognise that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society. <BR>
<BR>
52. In order to ensure effective participation in global Internet governance, we urge international Organisations, including inter-governmental Organisations, where relevant, to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in policy decision-making relating to Internet Governance, and to promote and facilitate such participation. <BR>
<BR>
65. We underline the need to maximise the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet Governance, which should reflect their interests, as well as in development and capacity-building. <BR>
<BR>
66. In view of the continuing internationalization of the Internet and the principle of universality, we agree to implement the Geneva Principles regarding Internet Governance.<BR>
<BR>
As for the TA 72 mandate, it states, inter alia, that the IGF should:<BR>
<BR>
c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview; <BR>
d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;<BR>
e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world;<BR>
f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;<BR>
h) Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;<BR>
i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are planning to invite.<BR>
<BR>
The co-sponsors have not yet begun to discuss specific panelists, but will do so in July with an eye to providing names prior to the advisory group's deadline for deciding on proposals. Per previous, the panel will be multistakeholder, diverse in geographical and other dimensions, and embody a range of viewpoints.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop?<BR>
<BR>
There are a great many "main actors in the field" of Internet governance as it was defined during the WSIS process. Some are involved in this workshop as co-sponsors, others will be invited to participate.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past.<BR>
<BR>
Most if not all of the co-sponsors have extensive experience organizing events similar in format and/or substance. Moreover, per the answer to #1, the lead organizer held a multistakeholder workshop on the same topic in February, and the GigaNet symposium will address the same topic with academic papers. So there are potentially strong synergies to be realized by having two linked events, one with scholarly analyses, the other with views from policy practitioners/stakeholders.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>