<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi,<BR>
<BR>
Per Parminder’s request, I’ve drafted some language on two possible main session topics. In both cases, I took note of the Swiss statement. One could argue either way the politics of doing that, but ultimately I thought it’s sensible to clearly make the linkage so the proposals are framed in subsequent discussion as a MS intervention rather than just some CS thing. If OfCom’s not shy about supporting our proposals, why should we be shy about doing the same? Also, on the WSIS principles piece, I suggest narrowing the focus this time in a way that makes the issues and politics more manageable. Several years of experience raising this with IGF leadership and at ITU and OECD meetings, etc. lead me to believe that the camel’s nose would be more less unwelcome in the tent if it looks like transparency and inclusion rather than “everything should be multilateral” or “let’s rehash WSIS” etc. <BR>
<BR>
Thoughts, suggestions, corrections of my false consciousness and running dog lackey ways, etc? <BR>
<BR>
BTW re: one other point raised prior, I would suggest that we not propose a main session on the IGF mandate, but rather hold off for another IGC workshop instead---second in a branded series, the first having gone well and not led the sky to fall etc. I can’t imagine key players welcoming the possibility of a main session hullabaloo on that.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B>A Development Agenda for Internet Governance<BR>
</B><BR>
Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, “Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.” The workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at New Delhi, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss OfCom’s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B>Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance<BR>
</B><BR>
The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss OfCom’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in New Delhi concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
William J. Drake <BR>
Director, Project on the Information<BR>
Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO<BR>
Graduate Institute of International and<BR>
Development Studies<BR>
Geneva, Switzerland<BR>
william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>