<div dir="ltr">hi all<div>I think we need a better way to list working topics and moving work based on who wants to help with what</div><div>should best bits have a wiki for work by working groups formed spontaneously based on what people want to work together on?</div>
<div>i feel a lot get lost in the list and people get distracted over procedural issues and some times too many contributions - which are good - but some times have the effect of burying the working proposals </div><div>within the <span class="" style>Wikimedia</span> groups, this "task forces" work well...</div>
<div>one examples among many from that community is <a href="http://en">http://en</a>.<span class="" style>wikipedia</span>.org/wiki/<span class="" style>Wikipedia</span>:<span class="" style>WikiProject</span>_Council of course the goal is different, but much is how we fix our knowledge and develop work together in a transparent platform, that also allows debate and a picture of the history of it)</div>
<div>What Carlos proposes demands a lot of work and focus, and since it is hard to set calls, we need to find ways to work asynchronously </div><div>This idea would also work for the working-groups formed at the Best Bits mtg</div>
<div>just a thought ...since this list is a high-traffic list and we could rethink what needs a working space for work and <span class="" style>follow</span>-ups and what actually needs to circulate/be discussed in the list</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com" target="_blank">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Thank you Joy for sharing your summary with us. This is very useful. I would invite all IGC subscribers to read Carlos, Joy and Avri's posts of the WGEC as it is very useful.<br>
<br></div>
The #WGEC on Twitter that was used during the meeting will also show the trail of discussions and thoughts. Joy I am wondering about the possibility of a Webinar where those of you who attended the WGEC can form a Panel either through a Webinar or a Google Hangout where you can talk about the recent WGEC meeting and take questions from us.<br>
<br></div>If someone from the IGC would like to volunteer to look into this, it would be useful.<br><br></div>Kind Regards,<br>Sala<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, joy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joy@apc.org" target="_blank">joy@apc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general<br>
note on the summary of the meeting: <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/" target="_blank">http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/</a><br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Joy Liddicoat<br>
<div><div><br>
On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
> Dear people,<br>
><br>
> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the<br>
> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting<br>
> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest<br>
> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in<br>
> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.<br>
><br>
> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the<br>
> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this<br>
> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always<br>
> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to<br>
> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.<br>
><br>
> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in<br>
> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed<br>
> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has<br>
> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,<br>
> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet<br>
> requires periodic revisions.<br>
><br>
> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF<br>
> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:<br>
><br>
> ------<br>
> 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,<br>
> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum<br>
> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance<br>
> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:<br>
><br>
> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet<br>
> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,<br>
> stability and development of the Internet.<br>
><br>
> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different<br>
> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and<br>
> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.<br>
><br>
> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other<br>
> institutions on matters under their purview.<br>
><br>
> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in<br>
> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific<br>
> and technical communities.<br>
><br>
> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the<br>
> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.<br>
><br>
> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing<br>
> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from<br>
> developing countries.<br>
><br>
> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant<br>
> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.<br>
><br>
> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing<br>
> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.<br>
><br>
> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS<br>
> principles in Internet governance processes.<br>
><br>
> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.<br>
><br>
> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse<br>
> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.<br>
><br>
> l) Publish its proceedings.<br>
> ------<br>
><br>
> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.<br>
> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented<br>
> forum, not merely a sequence of events.<br>
><br>
> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be<br>
> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which<br>
> have been basically ignored by the UN.<br>
><br>
> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its<br>
> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda<br>
> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which<br>
> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically<br>
> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the<br>
> expertises needed to carry out this challenge .<br>
><br>
> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or<br>
> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it<br>
> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.<br>
><br>
> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced<br>
> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development<br>
> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN<br>
> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has<br>
> revealed some worrying weaknesses .<br>
><br>
> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the<br>
> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There<br>
> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil<br>
> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the<br>
> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing<br>
> countries.<br>
><br>
> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including<br>
> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the<br>
> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of<br>
> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of<br>
> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is<br>
> attached in PDF]<br>
><br>
> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal<br>
> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis<br>
> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet<br>
> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,<br>
> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics<br>
> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group<br>
> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to<br>
> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group<br>
> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The<br>
> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG<br>
> and the WSIS process is inevitable .<br>
><br>
> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants<br>
> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not<br>
> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar<br>
> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both<br>
> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.<br>
><br>
> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this<br>
> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate<br>
> below.<br>
><br>
> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an<br>
> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and<br>
> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for<br>
> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of<br>
> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and<br>
> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their<br>
> suggestions:<br>
><br>
> ------<br>
> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and<br>
> Observers<br>
><br>
> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a<br>
> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living<br>
> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and<br>
> responsibilities of all participants;<br>
><br>
> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined<br>
> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles<br>
> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva<br>
> Declaration of Principles;<br>
><br>
> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it<br>
> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;<br>
><br>
> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended<br>
> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;<br>
><br>
> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for<br>
> Enhanced Cooperation;<br>
><br>
> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically<br>
> as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms<br>
> in a top down manner;<br>
><br>
> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand<br>
> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking<br>
> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;<br>
><br>
> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda<br>
> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;<br>
><br>
> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that<br>
> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion<br>
> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the<br>
> larger IGF community;<br>
><br>
> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on<br>
> IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional<br>
> Internet governance and management organizations;<br>
><br>
> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the<br>
> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters<br>
> within their mandates;<br>
><br>
> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF<br>
> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other<br>
> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal<br>
> footing;<br>
><br>
> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to<br>
> participate in the IGF.<br>
><br>
> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all<br>
> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and<br>
> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.<br>
> ------<br>
><br>
> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but<br>
> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced<br>
> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around<br>
> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative<br>
> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the<br>
> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.<br>
><br>
> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the<br>
> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:<br>
><br>
> ------<br>
> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of<br>
> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet<br>
> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative<br>
> working methods such as remote participation.<br>
><br>
> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate<br>
> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training<br>
> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.<br>
><br>
> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and<br>
> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates<br>
> affordable access for all stakeholders.<br>
><br>
> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to<br>
> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework<br>
> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights<br>
> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support<br>
> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.<br>
> ------<br>
><br>
> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can<br>
> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.<br>
><br>
> fraternal regards<br>
><br>
> --c.a.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><br></div></div><div class="im">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><b>Carolina Rossini</b> </div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<i>Project Director, Latin America Resource Center</i></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Open Technology Institute</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#330099"><b>New America Foundation</b></font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
//</div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><div><font color="#3333ff"><a href="http://carolinarossini.net/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">http://carolinarossini.net/</a></font></div>
<div><font color="#666666"><a value="+16176979389" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">+ 1 6176979389</a></font><br><font color="#666666">*</font><a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com" style="color:rgb(102,102,102)" target="_blank">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a><font color="#666666">*</font></div>
</div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#666666">skype: carolrossini</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<font color="#666666">@carolinarossini</font></div></div><div><br></div>
</div>