<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)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* 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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1518425781;
mso-list-template-ids:944517296;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</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=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Karen, Thanks a lot for putting together
the draft statements. It is very helpful at a time I am not able to give a lot of
attention to this task. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Some quick responses to your queries.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>>I: themes - is the caucus not now supporting the IISD proposal for
a main theme of sustainable development and internet governance?<br>
<br>
There has been no discussion on it, so we at the moment have no formal position
on it. <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?<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'>It has been in earlier caucus statements, last year. I can add a line. Does
anyone have any reservations to adding – The caucus supports the continuation
of Nitin Desai as the Chair of the MAG. He has played a stellar role in guiding
the MAG and the IGF through difficult formative times. <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'>Or any alternative text..<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'>Parminder </span></font><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> karen banks
[mailto:karenb@gn.apc.org] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Saturday, February 23, 2008
7:26 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> governance@lists.cpsr.org;
Parminder; governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [governance] karenb
comments: IGC statements</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<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'>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>
</span></font><b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold'>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>
</span></font></b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Verdana'>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: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<ol start=1 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold'>Working
group on self and co-regulation in internet governance <o:p></o:p></span></font></b></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold'>Working
group on business models for access <o:p></o:p></span></font></b></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><b><font size=2 face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold'>Working
group on a development agenda for internet governance.</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Verdana'>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 '</span></font>code
of participation in IG processes' - you're referring to the press release from
APC, CoE and UNECE last year?<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite cite="">
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite cite="">
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite cite=""><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>The Council of Europe and<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>the Association for Progressive Communications propose a code for public<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>participation in Internet governance<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>RIO de JANEIRO -- Intergovernmental and civil society organisations<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>propose a self-regulatory mechanism to foster participation, access to<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>information and transparency in Internet governance at the Internet<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro on 12 November 2007.<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><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>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<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>