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

Tue Oct 18 08:38:43 EDT 2005

Hi, Ian,

good start!
My comments on your comments...

> 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. 

Actually, the food for thought document calls in para 68 for the 
examination of the establishment of an "Internet-Governmental Council 
for global public policy...".

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 

I would prefer if we object to this model right away. I don't see any 
benefit in postponing this discussion.

(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 .

I don't think that there would be a majority in the caucus for such a 
far reaching oversight model. A multi-stakeholder composition wouldn't 
resolve the fundamental concerns about such an approach.
> 
> 
> 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
#
I find this sentence above, particularely section b and f, slightly 
contradictory. How can the forum faciliate discourse between bodies 
dealing with cross cutting areas but not address issues that fall in the 
scope of existing bodies? I think our language on the forum is less 
ambivilent here.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)

I have issues not only with multilateral but also with "each of them in 
their field of competence". If we look at the agreed upon text re civil 
society, we get an idea about the role or field of competence designed 
for us.

Unless people disagree with our statements on the forum function, I 
think we should use our language as the base for our comments.

jeanette

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