[governance] Chair's dicussion paper

[Jeremy Shtern]

Subcommittee A: Thursday Sept 22- 10-13 hrs, RM XX

Before session today the chair distributed a paper copy of the list of
discussion points that was projected on the screen and discussed today:


Handout:  The Chair’s Discussion Paper 
(paper version of discussion agenda projected on screen and discussed
yesterday)

reads as follows: (English only)

Preambular text

Part 1: introduction
-	Geneva principles
-	WGIG mandate
-	Working Definition

Part 2: Stakeholders
-	roles and responsibilities
-	coordination

Part 3: Public policy issues relevant to IG

3a) infrastructure and management of critical internet resources

3b) use of internet
-	internet stability
-	spam
-	access to info and knowledge
-	freedom of expression
-	data protection and privacy rights
-	consumer rights
-	Intellectual property rights


Part 4: Measures to promote development
-	capacity building
-	meaningful participation in global policy development
-	multilingualism
-	enabling environment


Part 5: follow-up and future arrangements

-approach: evolutionary / incremental
-framework for interface between existing and future arrangement
-possible governance/ oversight function: (four models) 
- possible forum
-recommended mandate
-structure- light/ heavy? Loose/ tight?


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=
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 Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: September 22, 2005 4:03 AM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: [not_spam] [governance] Consensus on the forum issue

Hi,

although many  of the active caucus members are here, there are 
obviously problems to meet. We have had two caucus meetings so far, both
of them had lots of new attendees. While it is very good that other 
caucuses become interested in our work, it turns out to be difficult to 
discuss contested issues such as the forum. The fact that only a few 
WGIG members find the time to attend the caucus meetings doesn't exactly

help.

Having said that, I think we need to make an effort to clarify a number 
of things:

1. How far does consensus reach with regard to the forum?
2. What exactly do we disagree about?
3. How can we bypass this conflict?

As far as I understand nobody opposes the idea of a forum in principle. 
Nobody supports the position of the business sector, which doesn't even 
recognize the need for a venue where Internet related issues can be 
discussed.
What is more, we seem to agree that the forum should be open to anyone 
and composed in a multi stakeholder manner.

 From what I understand we disagree about the functions and the
authority
of such a forum. Some people think it should have only soft power 
without any decision making power. Others think we need a body that can 
make binding decisions.
Another bone of contention might concern the so-called oversight 
function. Some people think this issue should be treated seperately from
the forum, others think the role of the forum is related to that
function.

I would like to know if this is a correct description of our
controversy?

If so, I would like to suggest a possible compromise between these two 
differing views.
The civil society statement has language to the effect that the forum 
can make decisions if all participating statekholders agree with this.
(Former versions of Bill's statement included this clause. I think it 
only disappeared for the sake of brevity.) In other words, any extention

of the forum's authority would have to be consensus-based and bottom up.

The second common element I see has been pointed out by Avri. In her 
view, the forum has to earn its authority. It can only gain political 
authority if it is regarded useful by those who participante in the
forum.
Decision making authority for the forum would thus depend on two related
if's: consensus among the participants and legitimate outcomes. This 
implies that the forum may grow over time. It would start in a very 
modest way with nothing but advisory functions but its authority could 
increase over time depending on its productivity and legitimacy.
What do people think? Can we find a consensus along these lines?

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