<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3268" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008>Colleagues,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>As
previously I come here not to praise....</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>I
don't find anything objectionable in Bill/Parminder's phrasing re: #4
below...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008>However, in the interests of avoiding mission
creep and in CS solidarity I'm attaching a draft document that I've
been responsible for preparing for the CS contribution in advance of the
OECD Ministerial in Seoul in June.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>This
document deals with "ICT4D" issues and is meant to be somewhat comprehensive
with respect to those issues from a CS perspective. Comments and
suggestions are welcomed. (They could be addressed to me directly
(probably better off line) or added to the wiki <A
href="http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org"><U><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org</U></FONT></A> . This
document is part of one chapter in the broader statement that is being put
together by Katitza Rodriguez of Public Voices.)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>I'm
sending this to this list for two reasons... One to get expert feedback and
content/referencing additions/suggestions (please!) but also to do a bit of
boundary maintenance.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>By my
estimation, assuming that the attached paper #1.3 is somewhere in the ballpark
with respect to issues of concern to CS in the ICT4D space then I would guess
that there is roughly at most a 20% overlap between the issues identified in
this paper and what would conceivably be of interest in an Internet Governance
perspective.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008>Nothing wrong with that. It makes sense for folks to
deal with the issues that they know and can comment on from a base of knowledge
and experience.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>The
second reason is to indicate two issues:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008> 1. it should clearly
articulated that the proposed IGF theme on the "Development Agenda..." is
both necessary and sufficient for Internet Governance purposes that is the
discussion is one concerning "A Development Agenda for Internet Governance"
rather than "An Internet Governance Agenda for
(ICT4)Development"...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>The
second problem that I see is that there is no forum where the other aspects i.e.
of the non-IG aspects of the Development Agenda can be discussed in an open,
participative and multistakeholder manner as per the processes of the IGF.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>That
isn't to say that the IGF should expand its mandate, as I've said so
boringly times before, the range of actors who should be involved in the
latter discussion is rather different (including and particularly from a CS
perspective) from the range of actors currently involved in the IG
discussions..</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>As a
thought, it might be a very useful and usefully collegial initiative if the IGC
caucus were to take some initiative in stimulating the creation of a
counterpart ICT4D policy forum to operate in parallel with (and partially
contributing to) the IGF.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=723520315-21022008>Best
to all,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008>Michael Gurstein</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=723520315-21022008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> William Drake
[mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] <BR><B>Sent:</B> February 21, 2008
3:57 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Singh, Parminder; Governance<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[governance] main themes<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">On 2/21/08 12:11 PM, "Parminder"
<parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#00007f><FONT size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Bill<BR> <BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#00007f><FONT size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Would it not be better to use ‘Swiss gov’ instead of
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">Swiss OfCom in the theme
proposals. Makes it weightier and also more accessible to everyone. Parminder
<BR><BR>---------<BR><BR>Good point. Because it was OfCom specifically
that offered to co-sponsor the DA workshop in Rio (just like other ministries
that have done so in their own names for other workshops) and the new
statement is signed by OfCom I didn’t differentiate, but in fact the statement
is labeled “Swiss Comments” so presumably it’s ok to attribute it to the Swiss
government generally. Also, in rushing out a text, I failed to note also
the co-sponsorship of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee; since the
Brazilian government has publicly supported the DA idea (not just in Rio, but
also in responding to a talk I gave at an UNCTAD meeting in Geneva) it would
be dumb not to flag their support and invite their comment on the proposal.
So how about we consider the revised texts below. Corrected a typo
as well.<BR><BR>BD<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><B>4. 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, the
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, and partners from other stakeholder
groups 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 proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group
that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development
agenda.<BR><BR><BR><B>5. 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 programmatic activity
in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss 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></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>