<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I support Bill's draft
below... I propose that co-coordinators take this language for dev
agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ Open Internet, and if the
decision is to include 'Internet rights and principles' in the list,
abstract a short para on it from the earlier statement which is
relatively not very sharp, and in size no longer than the paras on dev
agenda and NN. We shd put it out for a day or so of last comments and
then a final version for a consensus call over 48 hours. <br>
<br>
In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour workshops
on the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized last year, which
represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF
context. And if 'internet rights and principles' is included as a main
theme, that the DC on IRP has been doing good work in this area for
considerable time now, an dis in fact the most active dynamic coalition
(the much celebrated concept in the IGF).<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we
are proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea. In
the event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for
Hyderabad, and we really can't use it anymore, it's dated.</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote>
<p>A Development Agenda for Internet Governance<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
government, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee 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.<br>
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 Hyderabad, and
that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there.
We also support the Swiss government’s proposal to consider
establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop
recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>How about something like this, which doesn't change the
substantive thrust of what was previously agreed:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A Development Agenda for Internet Governance</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate
for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting
theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and
probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D)
might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap,
the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda
for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops
or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such
an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during
the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this
theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the
linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and
consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF
discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also
continue to support the Swiss government’'s proposal to consider
establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop
recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda.</div>
<div><br>
Bill</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>