<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] main themes: 4. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi Michael,<BR>
<BR>
Not to worry, as I told you off line, there is absolutely no interest in mission creeping into ICT4D. In fact, this was made explicit in the Rio WS description, in the WS itself, and in the current main session proposal. This is about IG per se. While I’ve not detected any confusion on the point in many conversations with participants, sure, the point can be underscored in the consultation.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 2/21/08 6:04 PM, "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Colleagues,<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">As previously I come here not to praise....<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">I don't find anything objectionable in Bill/Parminder's phrasing re: #4 below...<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">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.<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">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 <U><a href="http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org">http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org</a></U></FONT> <a href="http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org"><http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org></a> . This document is part of one chapter in the broader statement that is being put together by Katitza Rodriguez of Public Voices.)<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">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.<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">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.<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">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.<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">The second reason is to indicate two issues:<BR>
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"...<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">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. <BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">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..<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">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.<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Best to all,<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Michael Gurstein<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><FONT FACE="Tahoma">-----Original Message-----<BR>
<B>From:</B> William Drake [<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]">mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]</a> <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><FONT FACE="Arial">On 2/21/08 12:11 PM, "Parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT COLOR="#00007F"><FONT SIZE="2"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Bill<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT COLOR="#00007F"><FONT SIZE="2"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Would it not be better to use ‘Swiss gov’ instead of </SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>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>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><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><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>