[governance] Comments on Food for Thought paper (oversight)

Tue Oct 18 02:24:22 EDT 2005

Trying to be a bit organised here I have started a separate topic for
comments/suggestions on Food for Thought paper (separate to Chairs paper)

My Comments on Chair's Food for Thought Paper

Oversight
68.	OVERSIGHT
The Food for Thought paper calls for examination of an oversight model at the
end of a transitionary period. Coverage is for the following issues
·	Internet related public policy issues
·	Oversight of IP addressing tlds etc etc.
·	Co-ordination and dialogue.
·	Government run with involvement of private sector and civil society.

Perhaps what we could agree to say about that is we agree that the 
matter should
be examined at the end of a transitionary period and a decision made then (and
therefore not now) - after all stakeholders are more fully acquainted with the
facts and issues (see forum below which might accompish this).

We could also suggest that the principle of multistakeholder involvement in
policy making should apply to this proposed governance structure .

FORUM

69.

The Chairs Forum proposal is for a forum for dialogue, not decision making. We
may want to welcome this. Other items we might particularly welcome here are
·	facilitation of discourse between different bodies dealing with different
cross cutting areas
·	making full use of academic, scientific and technical communities
·	issues that don?t fall within the scope of existing bodies

70.
The Chairs proposal for a forum is that it be multilateral, democratic and
transparent. We would probably prefer multistakeholder here. We could welcome
(in addition to transparency)
·	Build on the existing structures of Internet Governance, with special
emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this
process -- governments, business entities, civil society and 
inter-governmental
organisations -- each of them in their field of competence, and their
participation on an equal footing (how this equates with use of word
multilateral we could question)
·	Have a lightweight and decentralised structure and be subject to periodic
review
71.	The IGF should have no oversight function and should not replace existing
mechanisms or institutions and should have no involvement in day-to day
operations.

We could agree with this and stress this as well.

Quoting ian.peter at ianpeter.com:

> Rober I agree with your approach - lets isolate the key components in
> forum and
> detailed governance proposals and food for thought document and compare
> and see
> where we have a common position we can support or caution against.
>
> In parallel, we can comment on any proposed wording changes to the draft
> document under the separate topic.
>
> Can someone prepare a draft of key points we should comment on or consider?
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
> Senior Partner
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St
> Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel +617 3870 1181
> Fax +617 3105 7404
> Mob +614 1966 7772
> www.ianpeter.com
> www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet)
> www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005)
>
>
> Quoting Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org>:
>
>> As for documents for CS to comment on - well, there sees to be a pool
>> of documents:
>>
>> - The latest version of the chair's document
>> - Food for Thought paper - a document, that many countries didn't
>> even want to see tabled (US, Ghana, Canada, and others)...will they
>> even care to use it, or ignore it all together...?
>> - Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean, and others
>>
>> The Argentinean proposal, didn't manage to get the discussion it
>> could have as right after it was tabled Pakistan asked the chair
>> (also from Pakistan) to come up with a food for thought paper... I'm
>> not sure how all of you read the situation...
>>
>> That being said, the fact is that there are some key proposals on the
>> table. An idea - can we analyse the different proposals,  and come up
>> with a CS response...How to do that -  we compare the elements found
>> in each of the proposals. Let's see what is common, what's
>> different , and what's missing all together.
>>
>> If anything, the caucus would have something to say to each of the
>> proponents. By adding our own elements - well, we'd have something
>> positive to contribute.
>>
>> well, that's my suggestion. Comments anyone?
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> --
>> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
>> Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17-Oct-05, at 10:02 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'll have a look, Adam.
>>>
>>> One thing though - are there changes that we are aware governments are
>>> going to
>>> want in the sections that are still not agreed? One of the
>>> difficulties is its
>>> easy to comment on the draft, but not so easy to prepare in advance
>>> positions
>>> on issues that are like to be raised...
>>>
>>> I guess this particularly applies to 76 on. In this respect is the
>>> chairs Food
>>> for Thought at
>>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|0
>>> at all relevant to your needs at present? It covers forum etc to a
>>> larger degree
>>> - do we need to comment on it as well at this stage?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

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