<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000066" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
Hi All<br>
<br>
It is great that we were not only able to authorise our co-coordinators
to speak for us in the opening and closing ceremony of the IGF, but
also that the IGF secretariat was gracious enough to accommodate our
request. I hope that these kinds of things, which are perhaps
serendipitous opportunities, could also propel us as IGC to get
stronger and more purposeful... anyway, more to the issue at hand...
The following are my views on what key issues should be a part of our
opening and closing session statements. <br>
<br>
While a little of IGC history and its evolution will be fine, I dont
think we need to go too much into it. That would be kind of inward
looking, while the opportunity here is to address the 'outside'. The
history we mention would just be that kind and that much which helps
people understand who we are and why we are there. In that sense using
the opening parts, but also the objectives part, of our mandate too
will be quite useful. We also need to remember that few things are as
political as history :), and be careful in framing the 'history' of
IGC. The IGC mandate on the other hand is a negotiated and voted upon
text.<br>
<br>
<br>
Most of the the the should of course focus on real IF issues, that are
topical. The list of issues that were voted upon give us a good basis.
However, we need also to be able to put enough punch into what we say,
and thus not be limited to very generic, everyone-will-agree,
propositions.<br>
<br>
The shape in which the IGF will go forward after its renewal is
important. Its existing core qualities have to be preserved, but it
would be good to clearly suggest what kind of improvements are we
looking for. UN Gen assembly session which will decide on this will
take place in Oct, and a lot many governments who will take part in the
proceedings will be listening at the IGF. Also, we should acknowledge
the CSTD working group on IGF reform and express our desire and
commitment to work closely with it. As mentioned earlier some CSTD
members will be on a kind of initial fishing exercise at the IGF in
this regard. <br>
<br>
On the matter of another key topical global IG issue, enhanced
cooperation (EC), on which open consultations will take place later
this year, I read in the top ranking that the issue that CS
participation in EC got not only the procedural issue pf
'participation' but also a rather keen interest of the IGC in EC
process . We should respect this vote and clearly and strongly mention
that the move towards an EC process should figure out ways on how to
address the urgent imperative of developing global institutions to
develop global IG policies in global public interest. The process of
EC, as addressing the imperative of 'developing policies' is different
from the IGF process which is oriented to taking wide inputs,
deliberating on options, and feeding into the policy developing
processes (which largely do not exist at present, which is the major
reason for some actors putting question marks on IGF's usefulness). The
two processes are thus complementary though clearly distinct. In this
regard we should appreciatively acknowledge the ECOSOC resolution
adopted last month that makes these two points. We should also note
with appreciation that the stalled process of EC is now being sought to
be pushed along, as was mandated by the WSIS, through the planned open
consultations later this year.<br>
<br>
We should also make the very important point that we see EC not just as
a process that will address the issue of CIRS, but that it is supposed
to address all global IG issues (It is a big point of contention among
some, and will be discussed at length, I think, at the open
consultations, and I think we should make our position clear on this.
(My understanding is that in the IGC there is enough consensus that EC
process is not just about CIR, but is supposed to address all global IG
isuses that need addressing. This bit of accent on non-exclusive-CIR
focus of global IG also comes forom the early history of IGC
highlighted by Wolgang and Bill).<br>
<br>
Finally, we should not fail to mention some very topical specific IG
issues leike net neutrality It is a bit of travesty that when the whole
world is talking about NN vis a vis wireless Internet, the main global
IG forum has no formal place for this issue on its agenda. It is for
the progressive CS players to fill in such gaps, and make themselves
heard loudly. We should highlight the fact that the basic architecture
of the Internet may soon be compromised for ever if we do not
collectively act together *now* in public interest. We should make bold
to specifically mention the verizon - google deal which is being hot ly
discussed by all progressive IG advocates (remember in this case that
we have taken on ourselves through our mandate to channel in wider CS
concerns from across the globe into IGF kind of processes). <br>
<br>
We shd then, also as per our vote results, mention the crucial role IGC
has played in bringing the human rights agenda to the IGF, and about
all the work that has gone into it. However, it shd be pertinent to
mention here that we take as much interest in economic, social and
cultural rights and the right to development as in the more often
discussed civil and political rights, and we work on the principle of
indivisibility of right highlighted in the opening part of WSIS dec of
principles. We can perhaps mention that excellent initiative of Brazil
which has uniquely taken the HR as the point of departure, which is
people-centric, for making an IG policy framework rather than the
typical state interest-centric and big business interest centric
forom-the-top IG policy framing that is often the way it normally
happens.<br>
<br>
We shd mention our efforts reg getting development issues and agenda
into the IGF and how we plan to further work on it. There is a lot work
ahead of us in this regard.<br>
<br>
We shd mention that developing the unique never-before infrastructure
of remote participatoon at such an extensive scale as is being done at
the IGF is indeed a big contribution of the civil society, and must
congratulate the specific actors involved in this effort. This may be
providing a new set of means and processes for openness and
participation that may become the default global standard and be
followed in all global policy process....<br>
<br>
Thanks, parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>