<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 77.95pt 1.0in 77.95pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Below is the text for
the proposed caucus statement on themes for IGF Delhi. As with other statements,
we may read out a shorter version of the statement as per time available, but
good for the caucus to adopt a full length statement. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'> (starts)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>As suggested in our earlier statement (depending on which statement
goes first), CS IGC is of the opinion that the four general themes of access,
openness, diversity and security (with CIRs added in Rio) have served a useful
purpose in organizing the IGF meetings in its early formative stages, by which
we mean its first two meetings in Athens and Rio. We should now move on more
purposefully to the serious business of providing directions, ideas and
possibilities to global public policy making in the Internet arena, which is a
primary mandate of the IGF. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>We are of the opinion that the above general themes of access,
openness, diversity and security should remain cross-cutting themes for overall
organizing of the substantive aspects of the IGF. However, the main sessions
should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important
in the current global context. A series of thematic workshops should also be
organized around these main sessions, whose output should feed into them.
Adequate preparatory work should go into preparing the main sessions and the
connected workshops using dedicated working groups. These WGs should also
synthesize some outcome documents for each main theme.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>For Delhi, we suggest the following main session themes.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>1. Enhanced Cooperation - what was meant
by the Tunis Agenda, and what is the status of it<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for enhanced cooperation for global
Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is meant
by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute enhanced cooperation. IGF
is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and possibilities of this term,
through wide participation of all stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder spirit
of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such an open discussion pushes the
process of EC forward, which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a
limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>2. 'Network Neutrality - ensuring
openness in all layers of the Internet'<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for
the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet
becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and
social activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer,
but also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will
examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary
interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>3. "Internet Governance for
Sustainable Communities"<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(Thomas’s current formulation speaks only about CIRs and
sustainable communities. I am encouraging him to develop a broader theme of
connecting the issue of sustainable communities to IG in all layers –
logical, application, content and software. CIRs implicated in logical layers can
be one set of issues developed through a thematic workshop and fed into the proposed
main session. Issues of local connectivity solutions (and a global policy environment
encouraging it), local content, community appropriation of technologies, etc
could also be connected to ‘sustainable communities’. More
suggestions are welcome here))<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>4. A Development Agenda for Internet
Governance</span></font></b><br>
<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><span style='font-weight:bold'>5. Transparency and Inclusive Participation
in Internet Governance</span></b><br>
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>6. Netizens - on the Internet as a
support for grassroots democracy and participation in governance issues.<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(Ronda’s text is awaited. Suggestions welcome, as for other categories.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(ends)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>