<html>
<body>
<font size=3>dear all<br><br>
i haven't had time to do more than read through the threads in response
to the statements, and read through what i think are last versions of
statements. <br><br>
A file is attached with all 3 statements together (simply offered as i
put it together for my own purposes), gathered together from the threads
today.. <br><br>
i did a search and replace on (new) delhi and delhi (careful when you do
this as you'll catch one legitimate new delhi in relation to the comment
about nitin desai and the recent new delhi meeting) - and replaced with
hyderabad<br><br>
APC won't be submitting written statements apart from the report and
recommendations on access i've already posted here- but that statement
does contains one recommendation that the caucus statement also advocates
- that of working groups - and specifically, in relation to
access.<br><br>
The swiss are proposing a working group on a development agenda for
IG (which the caucus is supporting) - and in general, apc will
support the modality of working groups, as part of a process, that
supports thematic work in the IGF - as outlined in our statement at the
end of the Rio IGF (extract below)<br><br>
In addition to the general proposal, we will try to provide more detail
as to how WGs might work in practice, how they could be convened and
operate - working with the access WG as a prototype<br><br>
</font><font face="Verdana" size=2><b>3. Convening of “IGF working
groups” (full statement at :
<a href="http://intgovforum.org/rio_reports/apc_statement_igf2007_EN.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://intgovforum.org/rio_reports/apc_statement_igf2007_EN.pdf</a>)<br>
<br>
</b>APC recommends that the IGF uses the format of the Working Group on
Internet Governance (WGIG, established during the World Summit on the
Information Society), or bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) to convene working groups to address complex issues that
emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals with
the necessary expertise and drawn from different stakeholder groups.
These groups can then engage specific issues in greater depth, and, if
they feel it is required, develop recommendations that can be
communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed to specific
institutions. <br><br>
These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed
recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions for
action from the individuals in the working group.<br><br>
These working groups have a different role from the self-organised
dynamic coalitions which we believe should continue. Dynamic coalitions
have a broader mandate and are informal in nature. We see IGF working
groups as differing from dynamic coalitions in that they should
particular challenges rather than a general issue area. They will also
have a degree of accountability and an obligation to report that dynamic
coalitions do not have. <br><br>
Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups on the
following issues might be valuable:
<ol>
<li><b>Working group on self and co-regulation in internet governance
<li>Working group on business models for access
<li>Working group on a development agenda for internet governance.</b>
</ol>The need for working groups will only be apparent when the event
report has been finalised. We propose that the IGF secretariat and the
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) consider this proposal at that
time.<br><br>
parminder - you asked about how to get comments in on some kind of
'</font><font size=3>code of participation in IG processes' - you're
referring to the press release from APC, CoE and UNECE last
year?<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><pre>The Council of Europe and
the Association for Progressive Communications propose a code for public
participation in Internet governance
RIO de JANEIRO -- Intergovernmental and civil society organisations
propose a self-regulatory mechanism to foster participation, access to
information and transparency in Internet governance at the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro on 12 November 2007.
</pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br>
full statement at:
<a href="http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569" eudora="autourl">
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569<br><br>
</a><font size=3>we are moving ahead with this.. and anriette will be
able to update people in geneva.. but if this some thing the caucus
would like to support in principle (and get involved in in practice
between now and IGF Hyderabad) then maybe you can simply make a verbal
intervention to support the proposal, or express interest in the
proposal, at the appropriate time..<br><br>
=====<br><br>
in a verbal intervention, we will also comment on themes - supporting the
themes of transparency and accountability and sustainable development and
IG, amongst others, and comments on the reconstitution of the MAG, which
wil largely echo and support the caucus statement on this (and also noted
in our statement last year) - in fact, pretty ,much all of the proposals
from our statement last year still stand..<br><br>
a few brief comments on the caucus statements<br><br>
I: themes - is the caucus not now supporting the IISD proposal for a main
theme of sustainable development and internet governance?<br><br>
II: formats - no comments, largely support<br><br>
III: MAG - what about the question of continuity of the chair? i thought
i saw this somewhere, but maybe not in the caucus statement?<br><br>
karen</font></body>
</html>