[governance] IG caucus statement from Nov 13

[Paul Wilson]

The audio archive of this session is at:


http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/p2/pc3b/links/di-20051113-1800-en.smil

Bill's statement starts 6:00 minutes into the file.
Karen's starts at 12:45



paul



--On Monday, 14 November 2005 10:37 AM +0100 Jeanette Hofmann 
<jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
> the IG caucus made two interventions yesterday, Nov. 13.
> The first one made by Bill Drake focused on the forum proposal. A copy
> (hopefully it is the latest one) is attached, another one below in this
> posting.
>
> The second statement was made by Karen Banks. It addressed para 45c of
> chapter 3 of the draft statement. We asked the chair to reopen the
> aggreed language on the role of civil society with regard to Internet
> matters. In particular we suggested to remove the words "expecially on
> the communty level".
> I don't have a copy of that statement but will ask Karen to post it to
> the list.
>
> We have prepared another statement for the subcommmittee A meeting
> taking place this morning. The new statement reinterates our statement
> on the forum and will be read by Willie Currie. The sense after the late
> night meeting on Internet Governance chaired by Canada was that it is
> about time to stress the purpose of the forum.
>
> Canada, the US and some other governments like the forum to only focus
> on capacity building and development issues. This is why we thought it
> makes sense to remind the subcommittee A of the WGIG report's much
> broader list of public policy issues.
>
> We also plan for a statement on political oversight. We hope to be able
> to put together something meaningful - despite all the disagreements
> we've had on this issue in the past weeks.
>
> best, jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Statement of the Internet Governance Caucus
>
> Thank you Mr. Chairman.  My name is William Drake, and I am President of
> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR).  On behalf of
> the civil society Internet Governance Caucus, I would like to offer the
> following thoughts on the Forum.  We would like to mention some
> principles that we believe should help guide the forum's design and
> operation, and some related functions that we believe the forum could
> usefully perform.
>
> Guiding Principles
>
> First, stakeholders from all sectors should be able to participate on an
> fully equal basis in the Forum's substantive work.  This is essential
> to  the forum's legitimacy, and to its ability to attract the
> participation  of all relevant stakeholders.
>
> In this connection, we would suggest that the frequently mentioned
> phrase, "in their respective roles and responsibilities," should not
> in  any way be used to limit the involvement of any stakeholder.
>
> Further, we would insist that any group established to develop the
> forum's organizational design must involve the full participation of
> all  stakeholders.
>
> Second, the forum should not be anchored in any existing specialized
> international organization, but rather should be constituted as a
> legally free standing entity in which such organizations would
> participate alongside others.
>
> Third, we note the interest in the Canadian proposal, and agree that
> development and capacity building are essential objectives. However, we
> would insist the forum should also address the other functions proposed
> in the WGIG report, notably the monitoring and analysis of trends in
> Internet governance, and the promotion of inclusive dialogue, recalling
> the WGIG Report's recommendation that the Forum should be a place where
>   'any stakeholder can raise any issue.'
>
> Fourth, The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard
> instruments like treaties. In general, and only as needed, the forum
> should focus on the development of soft law instruments such as
> recommendations, guidelines, and declarations.  However, in very
> exceptional circumstances when all stakeholders agree that more formal
> arrangements are desirable, the forum could request that an appropriate
> international organization facilitate the negotiation of such instruments.
>
> Five, we reiterate that the Oversight Function should not be undertaken
> in the Forum.  The Internet Governance Caucus concurs with the WGIG
> Report that no single Government should have a pre-eminent role, and
> that oversight should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with
> the full involvement of Governments, the private sector, civil society
> and international organizations.  But it also believes that any reforms
> to these ends should be undertaken in other organizational environments,
> with which the forum would interface in the same manner as it does other
> bodies.
>
> Six, and in addition to promoting purposeful dialogue, mutual
> adjustment, and the adoption of soft law instruments where necessary,
> the forum should have a mandate to undertake expert analysis and the
> monitoring of Internet governance trends.  These functions could be
> performed by meshing a very lightweight secretariat with open
> consultations and networks of external expertise, including partners in
> the research community; and by making full use of the Internet and
> related tools to foster virtual collaboration.
>
>  From Principles to Functions
>
> With regard to the Forum's specific activities, and building on the
> suggestions of the WGIG report, we recommend that the forum perform the
> following functions:
>
> a.	Foster inclusive dialogue based on the equal participation of all
> stakeholders;
>
> b.	Undertake the 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.	Assess and monitor 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.	Identify weaknesses and gaps in existing governance mechanisms,
> especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the
> scope of any existing body;
>
> e.	Promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies, as
> appropriate;
>
> f.	Provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization
> to support meaningful developing country participation and capacity
> building.
>
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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