[governance] APC - Forum draft?

Thu Nov 10 08:55:28 EST 2005

Well done. Has my full support. The only "catchword" missing is "bottom up policy development" if it comes to soft law, recommendations etc.  The formula "Bottom Up" can be easily inserted elsewhere, but should be ast least once in the text.

Best regards

wolfgang

________________________________

From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Adam Peake
Sent: Thu 11/10/2005 2:32 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft?

Please see below.  Thanks to APC, I hope we can work with this.

I think there may be changes some of you might like to make, but it
is close to many of the ideas we have been discussing.

Looking forward to your comments,

Adam

APC November 2005.

1. Internet Governance Forum

APC recommends  that the UN Secretary General to initiate a forum
that incorporates the Geneva principles for significant
multi-stakeholder participation. We recommend that the forum not be
anchored in any existing specialised international organisation, but
rather be organised as a legally free-standing entity. Stakeholders
from all sectors must be able to participate in such a forum as peers.

* Scope and Function

We recommend that the forum provide the following functions:

a.  inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing
for peer-level interaction.

b.  comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms,
with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could
inform individual and collective institutional improvements

c.  assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all
internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency,
accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good
governance," such as the WSIS principles;

d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in existing governance
mechanisms, especially multidimensional issues that do not fall
neatly within the scope of any existing body;

e.  efforts to promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies

f.  provide a clearing house for coordination and resource
mobilization to supporting meaningful developing country
participation and capacity building;

g.  release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other
documents on the various internet governance issues.

h.  develop partnerships with academic and research institutions to
access knowledge resources and expertise on a regular basis. These
partnerships should seek to reflect geographic balance and cultural
diversity and promote cooperation among all regions.

We recommend that operations are designed in such a way that physical
attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged stakeholders
(developing countries, civil society organisations, individuals) are
proactively supported.

We recommend the forum have clear organisation and decision-making
procedures. It is also important that the structure that will be
given to the forum is able to produce practical results.

The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like
treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances
when all stakeholders agree that more formal arrangements are
desirable, the forum could request an appropriate international
organisation to negotiate such instruments. The forum focuses on the
development of soft law instruments such as recommendations,
guidelines, declarations, etc. in addition, the scope of the work of
the Forum should address the application of existing international
human rights instruments in the area of internet governance and
related public policy.

In addition, the scope of the work of the Forum should address the
application of existing international human rights instruments in the
area of internet governance and related public policy.

In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape
of the internet there will be a need to concretise binding
international agreements that relate to ensuring that nothing in
existing or emerging internet governance and related public policy
development impair, restrict, or contradict human rights, as they are
spelled out in the UDHR and international law. The forum should
monitor this evolving landscape with a view to the initiation of a
process to concretise such international agreements.

* Anchorage and legal identity

We propose that initially the Forum NOT be anchored in any existing
international organisation.

We propose that the Forum be constituted as an independent
international organisation incorporated under national law in any
country that provides for the legal establishment of international
not-for-profit institutions.

We propose that the process of convening and formally constituting
the Forum, as a free-standing legal entity, take place under the
oversight of the Secretary General of the UN.

* Constituting the membership

We propose the following steps, under the oversight of the SG of the UN:

1. Establish transparent membership criteria that is consistent with:

a.  The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple stakeholder
groups (paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles)
b.  The technical, legal, public policy and other areas of expertise
required to respond to the range of issues related to the BROAD
definition of internet governance
c.  Regional and linguistic diversity and the disparities that exist
in relation to economic development and access to the information
society, within countries and between countries

2. Convene a public nomination process that is open to:

a.  Governments
b.  Business entities
c.  The technical community
d.  Academic and educational institutions
e.  Civil society organisations
f.  Community based organisations and grassroots communities
g.  At large committees of individual users, (or 'netizens'). These
could either be formed on a regional basis or some other basis, e.g.
subject matter affinity.

* Structure and functioning

We endorse paragraph 46 of the WGIG report that emphasizes a
lightweight support structure.

Coordination of the work of the Forum can initially be provided by a
Forum Formation Team supported by a small secretariat. The Team could
consist of eight members made up of two each from the three WSIS
sectors -- governments, private sector and civil society and two from
the community of actors involved in technical aspects of internet
development and management.  One of the two in each sector should be
from a developing country. The Team could have a one year
non-renewable mandate to work with the secretariat to build the
Forum. The Forum should be established within four months of the
Tunis summit.

The Team's mandate could include:

  -  Drafting the member structure
  -  Developing an operational budget
  -  Resource mobilisation
  -  Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum
  -  Calling on people to populate sub-groups so that work could begin
on specific issues while the Forum's membership and structure is
being finalised

Members of the Forum can self-organise into thematic working groups
on an as needed basis to respond to both existing and emerging
internet governance and public policy challenges.

Meetings of the Forum:

Meetings of the Forum and thematic working groups can take place
face-to-face and online.

An annual meeting should take place, face to face, and be combined
with a public event that maximizes sharing of information, learning
and good practice. The venue should rotate.

Access to the work of the Forum, and its thematic working groups,
should be facilitated by online tools for example as is done by the
IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force).

Rotational and thematic meetings:

In order to avoid creating a large supporting structure to organize
meetings, the Forum could work with existing organisations to arrange
meetings.  Depending on the issue being discussed and on a rotational
basis for yearly meetings, the work of the Forum could be hosted by
the participating organisations, working in pairs, e.g.  UNESCO and
ITU, OECD and a regional African entity like NEPAD's eAfrica
Commission,  W3C and IDRC or GKP.  It should be understood that this
would not subordinate the agenda of the Forum to the hosting
organisation, but rather, would constitute a donation in kind to the
forum.  The notion of donation in kind to the forum could extend
beyond meeting organisation to other organisational requirements,
e.g. office arrangements for the secretariat or printing costs.

END
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance