[governance] Summar Notes- Subcomitee A (IG) : Friday September 23

[Jeremy Shtern]

Summary Notes on Subcomitee A Friday Sept 23 

There has been a lot of activity posted on the listserves since the
session ended, apologies if this duplicates a message already posted. 

Overview of Activity Today in Subcommittee A (Internet Governance):

- Chair asked for results of his consultation yesterday on the role of
stakeholders in the drafting groups from Singapore and El Salvador. 
- Singapore, having conducted roughly half of the consultation reported
that almost all countries agreed on the point that the stakeholders
(Private Sector, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society)
should be allowed to enter the room at the beginning of each drafting
group meeting and give a statement. Singapore then suggest that a
majority of the delegations with whom it had consulted felt that
stakeholders should then be forced to leave, and a minority felt that
stakeholders should then be allowed to remain in the room as observers
to the negotiations (with no speaking or negotiating rights).
- El Salvador, speaking on the other half of the delegations whom it had
consulted suggested that, in its sample, the majority was in favour of
allowing stakeholders to have observer status and the minority was in
favour of closing the room after opening statements. 
- The Chair of Subcommittee A, recognizing this as an unresolved issue
of Prepcom process, thus passed the matter upwards to the Chair of the
entire Prepocom, who was to have held informal consultations at 12pm on
this issue. We are as yet unaware of his decision.
- The chair then introduced the non-paper which could serve as the basis
of negotiations over langue in the working groups. It is available
online here:
http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0>http:/
/www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0
-There was debate about the paper, some (US and Canada) felt it had too
many preformed conclusions but most accepted that it could be worked
with. The chair re-assured that it was a neutral and non-biased
non-paper and that any perceived conclusions in it would just be
negotiated away.
-Discussion then turned to the logistics of the drafting groups. It was
suggested that the non-paper should be debated first, but the chair
non-the-less proposed that he make his suggestions today.
-He suggests three drafting groups:
DG1. On part 1, part 2 and part 3b of his non-paper
DG2. on part 4 with a particular focus on measures to support
development of in his non-paper
DG3. On par 3a and 5 of his non-paper.
- The Chair suggests that he himself will chair DG 3. 
- It is then decided that, as the text is not yet translated into any
languages other than English, as the Delegations have not had time to
analyze it or to confer with their regional and national delegations
and, as there is not yet a version of the text available that cross
references it with the Chair's food for thought document, the WGIG
report (DT 5) and the comments on the WGIG report (DT 7), that the
delegates will have the weekend to review the non-paper and consider if
the chair's proposed methodology is appropriate. It is also decided that
the Chair will need to give consideration to the question of if DGs will
work in parallel or one after the other so that smaller delegations can
participate in all three.
- Thus, despite some objections that this is developing far too slowly
and that there is not enough time left in Prepcom to accomplish this
negotiation, the session is adjourned with the decision that first thing
Monday AM, it will be discussed if the Chair's suggestions for the
composition of drafting groups is acceptable. Presumably, the idea is
this will be a quick process and that the drafting groups themselves
will begin in earnest on Monday, but as of Monday at 10am Subcomitee A
will still be in the plenary stage discussing its methodology.

Cheers,
PS.

Please feel free to send questions/ clarifications on-list or off-list
on any of these points.

In answer to some queries I received yesterday: Please also feel free to
insert this text in blogs or cross post it if you like (I kindly ask
however that you please be careful to keep it in its context however).
Robert Guerra will also be putting it into his blog, though I do not
have the link at the moment.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=
Jeremy Shtern,
 
candidat doctoral et chercheur au Laboratoire de Recherche sur les
Politiques de Communication/
Ph.D candidate & researcher at the Communications Policy Research
Laboratory 
 
Université de Montréal            
département de communication
 
514-343-6111 ex./poste  5419               
jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt
Sent: September 23, 2005 7:01 AM
To: Governance Governance Caucus
Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] proposed drafting groups

Well that's interesting. But what happens if (say) the public policy  
issues and the work of group 3 is not aligned? It also seems to me  
that the "development" area will end up having little leverage on  
outcomes, as all the implementable action looks to be in group 3 (and  
some of 1).

having read the document, my suggestions for an expanded description  
of Civil Society's role seem out of place, so apologies. It looks  
like it should just be one sentence. Actually, I can't quite tell  
what Part Two is doing in the Chair's document if the stakeholders  
have already been defined elsewhere? Couldn't the whole thing be  
taken out entirely?

Cheers,

Danny

On 23/09/2005, at 8:44 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Amb Khan has now proposed 3 drafting groups to be set up:
>
> Drafting group 1: Part 1 (introduction), Part 2 (stakeholders),  
> Part 3b
> (public policy issues related to the use of the Internet)
> Drafting group 2: Part 4 (Development)
> Drafting group 3: Part 3a (Infrastructure, Management), Part 5  
> (Follow up)
>
>
> Governments are asked to comment on this proposal monday. So, nothing
> will happen until then. Now, if that isn't an efficient procedure...
> jeanette
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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