[governance] Forum: the EU is looking for inputs

[Adam Peake]

Bill, thanks for the suggestion about the forum.

If you or Wolfgang have any news on oversight from the EU then please 
let us know!  I struggling to understand what their statement 
actually proposes.

About the idea for an Executive Group: something will be necessary. 
Is there anything helpful in our comments on WGIG structure and 
process? See attached (ignore mention of numbers).

Agree about not overlapping with Global Alliance, would have thought 
it a problem to include a comment about this.

Adam




>Hi,
>
>I'm slammed with an extended period of travels and other stuff that make
>participating on all the topics here difficult, but I would like to
>comment on the forum discussion.  I'm just back from Wolfgang's ICANN
>Studienkreis meeting in Brussels, which was quite good.  While there I
>spent a lot of time talking with Nitan and some also with the EU folks
>regarding the forum.  My sense remains that at the political level of
>principle, this is a done deal. It was always the only logical outcome
>regarding institutional reform.  However, apparently there has not been
>much discussion of how exactly to make it happen, most notably because
>everyone is preoccupied by the fight over oversight.  The details surely
>will not be worked out before Tunis; there will be a call, probably again
>to the SG, to set up a group to devise a concrete plan for consideration
>by the General Assembly in the spring.  The risk is that this group may
>not be fully inclusive, in which case the idea could get twisted away from
>our original proposal.
>
>In light of my tooth grinding on this concern, Martin Boyle of the UK (EU
>presidency) asked me to write a text laying out a vision of the forum,
>which he said he would then share with all EU governments and other
>parties. Nitan agreed that at the UN level, such a document would probably
>be most welcome.
>
>It would be far better if the caucus were to provide a collectively agreed
>input.  Since the governments don't seem to have the juice to work through
>a plan, something serious from CS could go a ways toward pre-configuring
>the range of options and avoiding any slippage in the wrong direction.  I
>would suggest that we think about a two-part contribution: 1) suggested
>wording of the text that to be included in chapter 3, couple of
>paragraphs, stating the broad parameters and calling on the SG to set up a
>design group; and 2) a more extended doc, perhaps 3-5 pages, that details
>some design parameters in light of which the chapter 3 piece would be
>read.
>
>In doing 2), I would think that the WGIG and previously agreed caucus text
>(from the reply to the WGIG report)---which have much in common, not by
>accident---provide a decent starting point, and that we don't need to
>reinvent our own wheel.  Easier to add and flesh out than start over.
>
>Collaborative drafting and tweaking on the list will be difficult as
>always, it's hard to keep track of threads on a range of different points
>and judge when consensus has been reached.  Isn't it possible for someone
>(Milton? Adam?) to put up a text on a website and aggregate focused
>responses on each provision, in the same manner that we did with the WGIG
>questionnaire?  I don't know whether CPSR would have the bandwidth to
>manage this at this time, we're doing a big org reinvention debate and
>strategic plan process over the next few weeks, but could look into it if
>nobody else can manage.  In the event that there is not full consensus on
>every point, we might want to have a sign on option for individuals and
>organizations.
>
>On substance, just a few quick points responding to previous threads:
>
>*Veni's statement that representatives from existing orgs should not be
>allowed to participate in the forum is a complete non-starter.  This could
>never be agreed and would anyway preclude any hope that the thing fosters
>a measure of mutual adjustment toward greater coordination, per WGIG.
>
>*As Jeanette noted, we have already discussed at length the notion that
>the forum should not address issues "covered elsewhere" and specifically
>rejected it in our agreed text responding to the WGIG report.
>
>*I understand the objections to Vittorio's Executive Group, but suspect
>that something like this would have to be established in any event, so
>it's better that we have some agreement bounding its mandate and
>operation.  Collective action requires a K group.
>
>*One point from the EU proposal, on which they are very firm, and to which
>we've spoken before, should probably be repeated explicitly, namely that
>the forum would NOT do oversight and hence sense as a dysfunctional
>backdoor substitute for the Council idea.
>
>*On Michael's question about the relation to other proposed new
>mechanisms: There will not be a  Commission for the Information Society to
>coordinate WSIS follow up and implementation.  The Global Alliance is
>proceeding down its own track and seems to have a 60% chance of happening
>under DESA auspices, without US support.  It would be very helpful (and
>much appreciated in New York) if we were to explicitly state that the GA
>and the Forum are viewed as very different and non-overlapping animals;
>the forum does governance, the GA does ICT4D, which could mean, e.g.,
>telecenters in Peru, distance ed in Togo, and so on...clearly different.
>There was a lot of unhelpful angst when GA people were imagining that the
>Forum was intended to undercut the GA, or that governments would in any
>event say well we can't create two new processes.  Whether the GA stands
>or falls, it should do so on its own, without being polluted by gaming vis
>the Forum, and I'd suggest we underscore that.
>
>Anyway: we have a direct avenue now to influence the discussion.  The EU
>wants to hear what CS thinks.  Could we perhaps start with our prior text
>on a website and go through the existing and proposed provisions and try
>to get them something in say two weeks?
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance