From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Wed Feb  1 09:01:57 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:01:57 -0500
Subject: [governance] [CS Bureau] Consultation on ITU reform today
In-Reply-To: <200602011201.k11C1gSs029798@homer2.tic.ch>
References: <200602011201.k11C1gSs029798@homer2.tic.ch>
Message-ID: <f2a6522d0602010601v3f2b78a2tdaa7024c8e164aaf@mail.gmail.com>

That an invitation was achieved is a good thing, that no prior notice
was given allowing for now prior preperation is still -  unacceptable.
A notice of a few days would have been nice...

That being said, I and no doubt others look forward to your notes of
the meeting.

regards

Robert

On 2/1/06, CONGO - Philippe Dam <wsis at iprolink.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Further to some pressure from civil society representatives (including CONGO
> and the IG Caucus), we have been called this morning just before the
> beginning of the meeting to attend to today's informal consultation on ITU
> reform (Council WG on WSIS, http://www.itu.int/reform/). Just for setting
> the context, the meeting is taking place in a small room at the ITU
> Montbrillant building, so that there is not so much space for many
> additional participants. The contributions made on the ITU on-line forum are
> all compiled in one working document available in the room and proposed by
> the Chairman. This document was also orally introduced at the beginning of
> the meeting.
>
>
>
> This aftn at 2:30, they will start by discussing the question of membership
> / participation of CS. We will provide you today with a short summary of the
> discussions.
>
>
>
> Draft agenda of the meeting:
> http://www.itu.int/reform/Council-Res-1244/Agenda.pdf
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Philippe Dam
>  CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat
>  11, Avenue de la Paix
>  CH-1202 Geneva
>  Tel: +41 22 301 1000
>  Fax: +41 22 301 2000
>  E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org
>  Website: www.ngocongo.org
>
>
>
> The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association
> that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and
> decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the
> presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United
> Nations agencies on issues of global concern.  For more information see our
> website at www.ngocongo.org
>
>

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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Wed Feb  1 10:49:30 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:49:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] [CS Bureau] Consultation on ITU reform today
In-Reply-To: <f2a6522d0602010601v3f2b78a2tdaa7024c8e164aaf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOKEDKGEAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

It's sort of depressing.  We've heard that CS want to participate 'without
any obligations;' that letting us in with fee waivers would be soooooo
expensive; that CS is simply misinformed, in reality many workshops etc are
open (like this one was open---decided and announced by the chair at the
start of the session?); etc etc.  The suggestion that CS should be able to
send observers on an ad hoc basis to particular events, like the rest of the
UN system, found no resonance.

Bill



> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Robert Guerra
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:02 PM
> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] [CS Bureau] Consultation on ITU reform today
>
>
> That an invitation was achieved is a good thing, that no prior notice
> was given allowing for now prior preperation is still -  unacceptable.
> A notice of a few days would have been nice...
>
> That being said, I and no doubt others look forward to your notes of
> the meeting.
>
> regards
>
> Robert
>
> On 2/1/06, CONGO - Philippe Dam <wsis at iprolink.ch> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Further to some pressure from civil society representatives
> (including CONGO
> > and the IG Caucus), we have been called this morning just before the
> > beginning of the meeting to attend to today's informal
> consultation on ITU
> > reform (Council WG on WSIS, http://www.itu.int/reform/). Just
> for setting
> > the context, the meeting is taking place in a small room at the ITU
> > Montbrillant building, so that there is not so much space for many
> > additional participants. The contributions made on the ITU
> on-line forum are
> > all compiled in one working document available in the room and
> proposed by
> > the Chairman. This document was also orally introduced at the
> beginning of
> > the meeting.
> >
> >
> >
> > This aftn at 2:30, they will start by discussing the question
> of membership
> > / participation of CS. We will provide you today with a short
> summary of the
> > discussions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Draft agenda of the meeting:
> > http://www.itu.int/reform/Council-Res-1244/Agenda.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Philippe Dam
> >  CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat
> >  11, Avenue de la Paix
> >  CH-1202 Geneva
> >  Tel: +41 22 301 1000
> >  Fax: +41 22 301 2000
> >  E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org
> >  Website: www.ngocongo.org
> >
> >
> >
> > The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership
> association
> > that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and
> > decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the
> > presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United
> > Nations agencies on issues of global concern.  For more
> information see our
> > website at www.ngocongo.org
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Wed Feb  1 12:05:14 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:05:14 -0500
Subject: [governance] [CS Bureau] Consultation on ITU reform today
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOKEDKGEAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <f2a6522d0602010601v3f2b78a2tdaa7024c8e164aaf@mail.gmail.com>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOKEDKGEAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <f2a6522d0602010905y643f67a4hf7bdd8d25fbb84b0@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting how the ITU seems to be know  what CS "wants"  without
even asking us or consulting us in some way.

A meeting on and about WSIS, one where there chair decides moments
before that it is "open"  to CS seems to indicate , at least to me,
that the ITU didn't learn anything about CS during the WSIS process.

I would be keen to know :

- what governments (if any) referred to CS in some way (be it positive
or negative)
- What the comments were made by the representstives  of the Russian
Federation, Iran & Brazil
- Comments (if any) that where made by the private (ie. business) sector.
-  WSIS Financial and/or budgetary issues that might have been raised.

Regards,

Robert

On 2/1/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's sort of depressing.  We've heard that CS want to participate 'without
> any obligations;' that letting us in with fee waivers would be soooooo
> expensive; that CS is simply misinformed, in reality many workshops etc are
> open (like this one was open---decided and announced by the chair at the
> start of the session?); etc etc.  The suggestion that CS should be able to
> send observers on an ad hoc basis to particular events, like the rest of the
> UN system, found no resonance.

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Feb  1 13:22:39 2006
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:22:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] [CS Bureau] Consultation on ITU reform today
Message-ID: <s3e0b631.038@gwia201.syr.edu>

Bill,

Chin up, we're not going to change 140 years of ITU history as a govt/biz talk shop overnight. 

They'll get the message sooner or later that times have changed & they need to pitch CS on why we should bother w them, rather than vice versa. But apparently not yet! : (

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> "William Drake" <drake at hei.unige.ch> 2/1/2006 10:49 AM >>>
Hi,

It's sort of depressing.  We've heard that CS want to participate 'without
any obligations;' that letting us in with fee waivers would be soooooo
expensive; that CS is simply misinformed, in reality many workshops etc are
open (like this one was open---decided and announced by the chair at the
start of the session?); etc etc.  The suggestion that CS should be able to
send observers on an ad hoc basis to particular events, like the rest of the
UN system, found no resonance.

Bill



> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Robert Guerra
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:02 PM
> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] [CS Bureau] Consultation on ITU reform today
>
>
> That an invitation was achieved is a good thing, that no prior notice
> was given allowing for now prior preperation is still -  unacceptable.
> A notice of a few days would have been nice...
>
> That being said, I and no doubt others look forward to your notes of
> the meeting.
>
> regards
>
> Robert
>
> On 2/1/06, CONGO - Philippe Dam <wsis at iprolink.ch> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Further to some pressure from civil society representatives
> (including CONGO
> > and the IG Caucus), we have been called this morning just before the
> > beginning of the meeting to attend to today's informal
> consultation on ITU
> > reform (Council WG on WSIS, http://www.itu.int/reform/). Just
> for setting
> > the context, the meeting is taking place in a small room at the ITU
> > Montbrillant building, so that there is not so much space for many
> > additional participants. The contributions made on the ITU
> on-line forum are
> > all compiled in one working document available in the room and
> proposed by
> > the Chairman. This document was also orally introduced at the
> beginning of
> > the meeting.
> >
> >
> >
> > This aftn at 2:30, they will start by discussing the question
> of membership
> > / participation of CS. We will provide you today with a short
> summary of the
> > discussions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Draft agenda of the meeting:
> > http://www.itu.int/reform/Council-Res-1244/Agenda.pdf 
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Philippe Dam
> >  CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat
> >  11, Avenue de la Paix
> >  CH-1202 Geneva
> >  Tel: +41 22 301 1000
> >  Fax: +41 22 301 2000
> >  E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org 
> >  Website: www.ngocongo.org 
> >
> >
> >
> > The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership
> association
> > that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and
> > decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the
> > presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United
> > Nations agencies on issues of global concern.  For more
> information see our
> > website at www.ngocongo.org 
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From Mueller at syr.edu  Thu Feb  2 13:26:49 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:26:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] How to Build an Internet Governance Forum?
Message-ID: <s3e208a5.073@gwia201.syr.edu>

New Paper from IGP:
=======================
Building an Internet Governance Forum
=======================

Public consultations on this new "Internet Governance Forum" will be held in Geneva February 16-17. The Internet Governance Project releases a new discussion paper explaining how the Forum could work. Download the paper here:

http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/IGP-Forum.pdf

The paper proposes three design criteria for the Forum: 1) It must be as open as possible and give all stakeholders equal participation rights; 2) its deliberations must be wide-ranging and resist politically motivated barriers to discussion; and 3) its products must feed into other, more authoritative Internet governance forums. We propose a structure and process for the realization of these objectives. 

We also set out three policy problems that exemplify the kind of issues the Forum should take up: spam, Internet free expression, and public policy principles for the coordination of Internet resources.

Internet Governance Project:
http://www.internetgovernance.org 



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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Thu Feb  2 13:39:22 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:39:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITU reform consultation (1 Feb. 2006)
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEENGEAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

For anyone not also on Plenary.

It would be fair to say that some of the government reps do not appear to understand the circumstances and interests of CS organizations.  As Philippe notes, a common view was, what's the problem, why don't they just apply for sector membership, pay thousands of francs in annual dues to join a sector (ITU-D being the cheapest) and fly their people to Geneva for 5-10 weeks per year to participate in the study groups and in their working parties, focus groups, etc.  ITU has a very specific club house mentality unlike anything else in the UN; if you care and are serious, pay up and come contribute to the work.  If you just want to show up for free, listen in, and maybe say something, what's the value added to us?  Getting them to think more expansively about participation options is the challenge.  Some signs of movement in some quarters on that.

Best,

Bill



-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of CONGO - Philippe Dam
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:15 PM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org
Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITU reform consultation (1 Feb. 2006)


 

Dear all, 

 

Please find below a summary of the discussion during the consultation on ITU Reform (1 February 2006, ITU, Geneva). With regard to better inclusion of civil society in the work of the ITU and although some delegations and Chairman Grin showed their reticence towards any change for better inclusiveness, two ideas were brought into the discussion:

 

-          Opening up of sector membership within ITU-D to civil society with no or much lower fees (Private sector, NGOs, and at the end of the meeting Syria).

-          New modalities for participation or consultation beyond / in addition to existing modalities for ITU membership (NGOs, Switzerland, Italy).

 

Information on this meeting: http://www.itu.int/reform/Council-Res-1244/index.html, http://www.itu.int/reform  

 

The on-line forum will remain open to collect new ideas on this issue (http://www.itu.int/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=428&start=0).  

 

Best regards

 

 

 

Consultation on ITU Reform

ITU Council WG on WSIS

1 February 2006

 

A few delegations expressed some general comments at the beginning of the meeting. Russia mentioned that WSIS would impact on the evolution of ITU terms of reference. New approaches should be considered for tackling WSIS action lines, and Russia insisted on the need to broaden ITU's mandate to replicate all WSIS issues under the ITU. Syria later on also stated that Internet Governance issues should also be dealt with by the ITU. Ambassador Karklins answered to Russia that ITU should focus on its own mandate for themes and actions lines, though playing an important role in the implementation and follow-up process, based on ITU Council Decisions. He highlighted the need for deeper interactions to be established with civil society, NGOs and the private sector. 

 

Renate Bloem (Conference of NGOs) drew attention to the last-minute possibility for some non-ITU member NGO representatives to attend the meeting, stressing their willingness to also be much more deeply involved in this overall reflection on ITU reform. Syria answered that non State actors are already involved in the work of the ITU through Sector membership for more than 600 entities, provided that they pay their dues. 

 

ITU Vital Activities

There is quite an agreement to recognise that, although ITU-T (Telecommunication Standardisation) and ITU-R (Radio-communication) should not be abandoned, WSIS would have a strong impact on the work of ITU-D (Development), taking into account the provisions of WSIS outcomes and reconsidering the structures of this sector. Syria proposed that ITU-D should also deal with processing, in addition to infrastructures, and stressed that ITU-D should be in charge of Action Line 5 on security. Vanuatu and Japan stressed ITU-D role in bridging the digital divide. 

 

Canada and the USA pointed out the member driven approach and the importance of ITU member inputs. USA and Australia mentioned that a strong reference should be given to paragraph 64 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles to define the up-coming core activities of the ITU. 

 

ITU member Private Sector (Cisco System, Compass Rose) and non-for-profit (AfriNIC) highlighted the need for more strengthened relationships with other actors in the post-WSIS environment with private sector, small companies, civil society and NGOs to increase the inclusiveness and cooperation in the vital activities of the Union. On the question of membership fees, Compass Rose called for more consideration to the financial situation of potential members: ITU-D is a portal for sector members from developing countries, gender agencies, youth organisations, so that a new participation approach should be made more affordable for all and more efficient. 

 

ITU activities that must be cutback

Only minor activities should be abandoned, in line with the content of the ITU strategic, operational and financial plan to be adopted at the next Plenipotentiary Conference. Lower priority issues as established in this strategic plan would have to automatically be abandoned by the ITU, depending on available resources. 

 

Civil society participation

The first delegations to take the floor expressed their preference for a statu quo. Indeed Italy mentioned that ITU is already open to all legal entities, and that non members could also participate through their national delegations. Syria proposed that all civil society should appear under the appellation of sector members as well, with the same conditions for membership, including ITU rules for fee exemption when applicable. Max-Henri Cadet, head of ITU External Affairs Unit, clarified the various memberships and related fees (4.000 CHF for ITU-D Sector members, 2.000 CHF for ITU-D associate members) and the conditions for fees exemption (the entity must represent a specific value for the ITU), as well as why it is a 'good investment' for civil society to become ITU member. 

 

Renate Bloem underlined the change which had come to the ITU being the leading agency in the WSIS process and embracing the new multi-stakeholder approach. This approach was the logical consequence of former UN World Conferences of the 90ies, each time more open, reflecting thus a change of mindset in society and to some extent of the UN, as pointed out by Kofi Annan last week in Davos. The WSIS process had clearly raised the expectations of CS to also engage with the ITU in all follow up mechanisms. In order to do this the ITU needs to adopt some consultative arrangement with CS similar to other agencies. Membership fees - even the lowest - are still out of range for most of CS. The ITU, in wanting to help bridge the digital divide, would gain from civil society expertise on the ground and also from technical expertise in many areas. After WSIS it would be quite anachronistic for the ITU to fall back into its old patterns. 

 

Switzerland supported that point of view, stressing ITU should find its own way for civil society participation, taking into account ITU financial problems and in accordance with ITU rules. Civil society approach could indeed allow for more concrete and efficient projects for ITU. Chairman Grin distinguished CS in WSIS implementation and CS in core ITU sectors. Italy took the floor a second time to clarify that civil society views would be more useful in societal issues, which are more concentrated within ITU-D, whereas the other ITU sectors are much more technical in nature. Syria also proposed to evaluate further possibilities to better involve in WSIS implementation, which could be limited to ITU-D sector. WSIS implementation activities should also reinforce ITU capacity to build networks. Compass Rose (Private Sector) also supported a broader opening of at least ITU-D to civil society and small companies. 

 

William Drake (CPSR) highlighted that ITU is the only organisation both within and outside of the UN where civil society has so many access problems. He stressed that ITU membership should actually be changed in terms of fees and criteria. However civil society entities do not only want to be sector members but would like to be able to come in workshops  and conferences as observers in a more flexible way, without having any additional cost for the ITU. AfriNIC also supported additional ways of participation for civil society, beyond the current membership. That is what Chairman Grin interpreted as a willingness to participate without obligation. However the discussion opened some alternative options to membership for participation of civil society. 

 

Change in the name of ITU

Syria and Russia supported the change of ITU name, as proposed by the Arab Group, to adapt to new realities of the expended role of the organisation. But there was no support for such an initiative, because of the cost it would imply and the questioning of ITU well-established trademark.

 

External aspect: ITU activities to implement Summit decisions

Syria proposed that ITU should more focus on internet issues, because member states should play a leading role in this area. Syria suggested the organization of an ITU Internet Forum in April 2007 about the role of governments in the internet governance. 

 

There is a general agreement that ITU should have a leading role in only implementing the Action Lines and themes as defined on the Annex to the Tunis Agenda (Cisco, Latvia, Bulgaria). The ITU work program should reflect these key areas on specific projects that can be implemented with the available budget (Alcatel, Bulgaria). Ambassador Karklins (Latvia) insisted on the fact that ITU should not impose its leading role on issues which naturally belong to other organisations, but contribute and collaborate with international agencies. Referring to the up-coming meeting on 24 February, he also stressed that ITU should not infringe on the establishment of the leading facilitating role to be played by the ITU, UNESCO and UNDP, to be set up by the UN SG, and on the ECOSOC activities, which only belongs to member States. Chairman Grin, answering this remark, noticed that ITU, UNESCO and UNDP were asked by the UN SG to hold some consultation about that.

 

 

At the end of the meeting, Max-Henri Cadet announced the on-line open consultation forum would remain active for additional comments on the ITU reform from non ITU members. The ITU Secretariat will therefore continue to collect ideas in this regard, until better solution for civil society participation would be established within the ITU structures.

 

Philippe Dam
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org
Website: www.ngocongo.org 

 

The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern.  For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060202/70d5b324/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consultation on ITU Reform 1-2-2006.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060202/70d5b324/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From jovank at diplomacy.edu  Fri Feb  3 07:59:21 2006
From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:59:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] Preparations for Internet Governance Conference (10-12
	February 2006) & Book on Multistakeholder Diplomacy
In-Reply-To: <mailman.13076.1138905229.466.governance@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <MDAEMON-F200602031359.AA5931861md50000085898@diplomacy.edu>

Dear Colleagues,

Please find below the link to Diplo's latest publication, Multistakeholder
Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities. The book will be officially
presented on 9 February 2006 at Malta's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since
quite a few papers in the book are directly related to the Internet
Governance Forum, the book should be a good basis for our discussions in
Malta.

Here is the link to the PDF version of the book:
http://www.diplomacy.edu/links/Multistakeholder_diplomacy_book


A quick sightseeing digression: The presentation of the book will take place
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is located in the old Valletta
palace (Palazzo Parisio). Napoleon used this palace as his 6-day home on his
journey to Egypt. Here is the link about its history, architecture, as well
as one romantic story associated with it:
http://www.foreign.gov.mt/pages.aspx?page=13.

Until Malta.. 

Regards, Jovan



BOOK CONTENTS


1. THE BASICS OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER DIPLOMACY

Brian Hocking - Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Forms, Functions, and
Frustrations


2. A MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE
 
Petru Dumitriu 	
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): From Geneva (2003) to
Tunis (2005) - A Diplomatic Perspective
 
Derrick L. Cogburn 	
Inclusive Internet Governance: Enhancing Multistakeholder Participation
Through Geographically Distributed Policy Collaboratories
 
 
 
3. NON-STATE ACTORS IN MULTISTAKEHOLDER DIPLOMACY
 
Britta Sadoun	
UN Conferences on the Spot - Voices from Civil Society: Whispering, Talking,
and Shouting
 
Raquel Aguirre Valencia	
The Role of Non-State Actors in Multistakeholder Diplomacy
 
Raymond Saner	
Development Diplomacy by Non-State Actors: An Emerging Form of
Multistakeholder Diplomacy
 
Lichia Yiu and Raymond Saner	
Development Diplomacy and Poverty Reduction Strategy  Papers for Least
Developed Countries: Non-State Actor Advocacy and Multistakeholder Diplomacy
 
Valentin Katrandjiev	
Reflections on Multistakeholder Diplomacy
 
William Taffotien Assanvo	
Multistakeholder Diplomacy in the Context of National Diplomatic Systems

 
4. MULTISTAKEHOLDER NETWORKS
 
John West	
Multistakeholder Diplomacy at the OECD
 
Chris Lamb	
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in Multistakeholder Diplomacy

 
5. A MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION
 
Anush Begoyan	
Multistakeholder Processes in Conflict Resolution
 
Victor Shale	
Post Cold War Diplomatic Training: The Importance of  a Multistakeholder
Approach in Inter- and Intra-State Conflicts
 
 
Conference Conclusions ("Salina Bay Conclusions")



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


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Fri Feb  3 08:58:24 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:58:24 -0500
Subject: [governance] thread on ITU as potential locus for IG work
Message-ID: <a06230918c0084fdae2d2@[192.168.0.104]>

Revisiting the thread on ITU as potential locus for IG work:

Bill's and Wolfgang's pointers to the German text raise the question 
whether IGF is, in the end, the locus for IG work.

As a simple calculus, it seems likely that empowering either of the 
existing protagonists (in this case the ITU) to take on the IG work, 
itself, will have a clear effect.  It would extend the stalemate - 
the struggle between two sides so on display through WSIS.  That 
would deny opportunity for the hard-won potential that IGF brings. 
Rather than create the possibility for necessary insights, through 
hard work in a neutral forum, and from that a way forward - if we 
re-embody the struggle, the stalemate will simply march on, already 
at least a decade underway.

Philippe's report from the Reform consultation can be read, I think, 
to see those sides-in-conflict still quite engaged, for example.

This puts, of course, significant onus on us to do a good job with 
IGF.  Beyond that, the German text also points to the support and 
research that the ITU might provide IGF.  My own judgment sees that 
as significant.  It does get to a fulcrum:  money and budget.

As already detailed a couple times on the plenary list, the ITU took 
a serious hit to its budget just a few years ago - a nine percent 
reduction is the number that comes to my mind.  Some of the research 
work at the ITU is already done with remarkably abstemious sums, and 
the results are not uncommonly cited around the world.  To my mind, 
we should be so pleased at such a resource for IGF.

If the governments are intent on this course of action, it can happen 
only if they supply the budget.  Instead of further budget 
reductions, as hinted in Philippe's report of the consultation (I 
haven't looked at the budget document itself, nor do I know even the 
general budget structure), prior cuts need to be restored and then 
supplemented generously.  If miracles are already the order of the 
day from ITU research efforts, executed with remarkably small 
budgets, we - and the governments - can ask them to take on real 
additional work only with adequate funds.

Yes, there would be some questions about neutrality of ITU findings. 
But they already deal with that question, in current work. 
Especially, ITU research support would presumably be in partnership 
with research capabilities from CS, now suggested for instance by 
Jean-Louis Fullsack on the plenary list to be a Voluntary Corps.  We 
already see more than one such set of work from CS.

Bye-the-bye, the budget question may also reflect indirectly on CS 
participation in ITU affairs.  With sufficient budget from 
governments and PS (perhaps including some reform of the financial 
support model), an ITU that does not feel pressed budgetarily can see 
its way to make more flexible arrangements, such as for 
participation.  That does not deal with another factor, though, 
commitment of newcomers to the mission.

In the end, budget is one of the measures of concrete support for WSIS goals.

As to the upcoming SG election, by all reports that is an intricate 
affair, one that the brave handicap.

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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Fri Feb  3 09:38:12 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:38:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] thread on ITU as potential locus for IG work
In-Reply-To: <a06230918c0084fdae2d2@192.168.0.104>
References: <a06230918c0084fdae2d2@192.168.0.104>
Message-ID: <f2a6522d0602030638i12580f33u639440cba7e7cb6b@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/3/06, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> As already detailed a couple times on the plenary list, the ITU took
> a serious hit to its budget just a few years ago - a nine percent
> reduction is the number that comes to my mind.

What is also significant is that it paid off a 1/4 of it's staff.

> In the end, budget is one of the measures of concrete support for WSIS goals.

let's be cautious. Have there been any third party audits of it's
finances? If so, would be good to see where they are (and not)
spending the precious sums they get from its members.

The ITU could be an Enron, may be not - but let's find out and do our
due dillegence before lending our support in anyway to the politics
going on at the ITU.


regards

Robert

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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Fri Feb  3 09:55:05 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:55:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] thread on ITU as potential locus for IG work
In-Reply-To: <a06230918c0084fdae2d2@[192.168.0.104]>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOAEFOGEAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of David Allen

> Revisiting the thread on ITU as potential locus for IG work:
>
> Bill's and Wolfgang's pointers to the German text raise the question
> whether IGF is, in the end, the locus for IG work.

Some of it, sure.  I'd bet on a fall meeting covering something
comparatively less sensitive than oversight, like spam or multilingual
names.  All I was saying at the outset was that while IGF and other
activities move forward, many governments will continue to push for
discussions of certain public policy dimensions in the ITU rather than
in--on more accurately, just in---GAC.  It's not necessarily either/or, and
it's not clear to what extent they will succeed, but this will be going on
and should be followed by CS.

> This puts, of course, significant onus on us to do a good job with IGF.

That would require a lot more CS dialogue and collaboration to devise joint
positions and ideas than has happened thus far.  As far as I can tell, the
MMWG has sort of stalled, and the consultation is less than two weeks away.
Conversations with some government and private sector people lead me to
believe that the sorts of ideas CS has advocated in the past are quite far
off their radars.  I'm not seeing thus far a lot of interest in really
leveraging the IGF to build MS networks or  working groups, analyze and
advance reforms of existing governance mechanisms, etc.  We could well end
up with just big annual meeting that talks around a topic for a couple of
days, adopts some really broad resolutions, and goes home, sort of like the
ITU's World Telecom Policy Forums.  Whoop dee doo.

Bill


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


From jhuns at vt.edu  Sat Feb  4 07:50:08 2006
From: jhuns at vt.edu (Jeremy Hunsinger)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 07:50:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] EXTENDED DEADLINE:  Internet Research 7.0
Message-ID: <176F162D-5F3F-499D-B929-850A976FA3C7@vt.edu>

Distribute as appropriate, sorry for crossposting -j

*** EXTENDED DEADLINE ***

By popular demand, we have extended the deadline for paper abstracts  
to 21
February - for full details, see below.

------

Internet Research 7.0, Brisbane 28-30 September 2006

CALL FOR PAPERS

IR 7.0: INTERNET CONVERGENCES
International and Interdisciplinary Conference of the Association of  
Internet Researchers

Brisbane, Australia
28-30 September 2006

Pre-Conference Workshops: 27 September 2006

INTERNET CONVERGENCES

The Internet works as an arena of convergence. Physically dispersed  
and marginalized people (re)find themselves online for the sake of  
sustaining and extending community. International and  
interdisciplinary teams now collaborate in new ways. Diverse cultures  
engage one another via CMC. These technologies relocate and refocus  
capital, labor and immigration, and they open up new possibilities  
for political, potentially democratizing, forms of discourse.  
Moreover, these technologies themselves converge in multiple ways,  
e.g. in Internet-enabled mobile phones, in Internet-based telephony,  
and in computers themselves as "digital appliances" that conjoin  
communication and multiple media forms. These technologies also  
facilitate fragmentations with greater disparities between the  
information-haves and have-nots, between winners and losers in the  
shifting labor and capital markets, and between individuals and  
communities. Additionally these technologies facilitate information  
filtering that reinforces, rather than dialogically challenges,  
narrow and extreme views.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Our conference theme invites papers and presentations based on  
empirical research, theoretical analysis and everything in between  
that explore the multiple ways the Internet acts in both converging  
and fragmenting ways - physical, cultural, technological, political,  
social - on local, regional, and global scales.

Without limiting possible proposals, topics of interest include:

- Theoretical and practical models of the Internet
- Internet convergence, divergence and fragmentation
- Networked flows of information, capital, labor, etc.
- Migrations and diasporas online
- Identity, community and global communication
- Regulation and control (national and global)
- Internet-based development and other economic issues
- Digital art and aesthetics
- Games and gaming on the Internet
- The Net generation
- E-Sectors, e.g. e-health, e-education, e-business

We call for papers, panel proposals, and presentations from any  
discipline, methodology, and community that address the theme of  
Internet Convergence. We particularly call for innovative, exciting,  
and unexpected takes on and interrogations of the conference theme.  
However, we always welcome submissions on any topics that address  
social, cultural, political, economic, and/or aesthetic aspects of  
the Internet and related Internet technologies. We are equally  
interested in interdisciplinary proposals as well as proposals from  
within specific disciplines.

SUBMISSIONS

We seek proposals for several different kinds of contributions. We  
welcome proposals for traditional academic conference papers, but we  
also encourage proposals for creative or aesthetic presentations that  
are distinct from a traditional written 'paper'. We welcome proposals  
for roundtable sessions that will focus on discussion and interaction  
among conference delegates, and we also welcome organized panel  
proposals that present a coherent group of papers on a single theme.

This year AoIR will also be using an alternative presentation format  
in which a dozen or so participants who wish to present a very short  
overview of their work to stimulate debate will gather together in a  
plenary session involving short presentations (no more than 5  
minutes) and extended discussion. All papers and presentations in  
this session will be reviewed in the normal manner. Further  
information will be available via the conference submission website.

- PAPERS (individual or multi-author) - submit abstract of 500-750 words

- SHORT PRESENTATIONS - submit abstract of 500-700 words

- CREATIVE OR AESTHETIC PRESENTATIONS - submit abstract of 500-700 words

- PANELS - submit a 250-500 word description of the panel theme and  
abstracts of the distinct papers or presentations

- ROUNDTABLE PROPOSALS - submit a statement indicating the nature of  
the roundtable discussion and interaction.

Papers, presentations and panels will be selected from the submitted  
proposals on the basis of multiple blind peer review, coordinated and  
overseen by the Program Chair. Each person is invited to submit a  
proposal for 1 paper or 1 presentation. People may also propose a  
panel of papers or presentations, of which their personal paper or  
presentation must be a part. You may submit an additional paper/ 
presentation of which you are the co-author as long as you are not  
presenting twice. You may submit a roundtable proposal as well.

Detailed information about submission and review is available at the  
conference submission website http://conferences.aoir.org. All  
proposals must be submitted electronically through this site.

PUBLICATION OF PAPERS

All papers presented at the conference are eligible for publication  
in the Internet Research Annual, on the basis of competitive  
selection and review of full papers. Additionally, several publishing  
opportunities are expected to be available through journals, again  
based on peer-review of full papers. Details on the website.

GRADUATE STUDENTS

Graduate students are strongly encouraged to submit proposals. Any  
student paper is eligible for consideration for the AoIR graduate  
student award. Students wishing to be a candidate for the Student  
Award must also send a final paper by 31 July 2006.

DOCTORAL COLLOQUIUM

The IR7.0 Doctoral Colloquium offers PhD students working in Internet  
research or a related field a special forum on 27 September 2006  
where they will have a chance to present their research plans and  
discuss them with peers and established senior researchers.

Interested students should prepare a 2 page summary of their  
research. This should provide a context for the research, describe  
the methods being used, the progress to date and expectations and  
hopes from the colloquium. Please submit your 2 page application by 1  
April 2006 to Marcus Foth at m.foth at qut.edu.au

Applicants will be notified of acceptance by 1 June 2006. Successful  
applicants will be asked to prepare an 8 page paper on their research  
by 1 August 2006.

Doctoral Colloquium Host and Sponsor: Creative Industries Faculty  
Queensland University of Technology

PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS

Prior to the conference, there will be a limited number of pre- 
conference workshops which will provide participants with in-depth,  
hands-on and/or creative opportunities. We invite proposals for these  
pre-conference workshops. Local presenters are encouraged to propose  
workshops that will invite visiting researchers into their labs or  
studios or locales. Proposals should be no more than 1000 words, and  
should clearly outline the purpose, methodology, structure, costs,  
equipment and minimal attendance required, as well as explaining its  
relevance to the conference as a whole. Proposals will be accepted if  
they demonstrate that the workshop will add significantly to the  
overall program in terms of thematic depth, hands on experience, or  
local opportunities for scholarly or artistic connections. These  
proposals and all inquires regarding pre-conference proposals should  
be submitted as soon as possible to the Conference Chair and no later  
than 31 March 2006.

DEADLINES

Final date for proposal submission: 21 February 2006

Presenter notification: 21 March 2006

Final workshop submission deadline: 31 March 2006

Submission for publication/student award: 31 July 2006

Submission for conference archive: 30 September 2006

CONTACT INFORMATION

Program Chair: Dr Fay Sudweeks, Murdoch University, Australia,  
f.sudweeks at murdoch.edu.au

Conference Chair: Dr Axel Bruns, Queensland University of Technology,  
Australia, a.bruns at qut.edu.au

President of AoIR: Dr Matthew Allen, Curtin University of Technology,  
Australia m.allen at curtin.edu.au

Association Website: http://www.aoir.org

Conference Website: http://conferences.aoir.org

jeremy hunsinger
jhuns at vt.edu
www.cddc.vt.edu
jeremy.tmttlt.com
www.tmttlt.com

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\                        - against microsoft attachments
http://http://www.stswiki.org/  sts wiki


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


From dannyyounger at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  6 15:26:58 2006
From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:26:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Edward Hasbrouck Appeals to ALAC for Action
In-Reply-To: <176F162D-5F3F-499D-B929-850A976FA3C7@vt.edu>
Message-ID: <20060206202658.39624.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com>

FYI:
The saga of one man (Edward Hasbrouck) against the
ICANN machine has been followed by ICANNWatch, by Bret
Fausett's blog and by others.  Ed has now appealed to
the At-Large Advisory Committee for assistance.  At
issue -- ICANN's Independent Review processes -- See
http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/msg00141.html  Let's
see if the ALAC will respond to the petition of an
individual user...

Reference URLS:
http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/06/02/06/0354225.shtml
http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/19/1714991.html
http://icann-news.blogspot.com/2006/02/hasbrouck-requests-alac-action.html

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue Feb  7 04:16:09 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:16:09 +0100
Subject: [governance] ITU's summary of its reform meeting
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOIEJJGEAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

The summary made by the Chairman of the ITU meeting on reform is now at:
 
 http://www.itu.int/council/wsis/Working_Group_on_WSIS/Feb-2006/docs/summary_of_the_itu_reform_meeting.doc 
 
On openness there are the following statements:

 "5. Membership, access and openness
 
 "5.1. ITU is sufficiently open because legal entities can become 
 ITU Sector Members or Associates. Technical workshops are open to 
 individuals and external organizations.
 
 "5.2. ITU's approach to membership could be adapted to create 
 more openness in the post WSIS environment to benefit from the 
 knowledge of civil society about local conditions. The 
 consequences of ITU decisions are very important to civil society 
 as well as to the private sector.
 
 "5.3. ITU publications and standards should be freely available 
 for downloads."



*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch

Director, Project on the Information

  Revolution and Global Governance

  Graduate Institute for International Studies

  Geneva, Switzerland 
President, Computer Professionals for 
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake 
*******************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060207/6c24e90b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From vb at bertola.eu.org  Tue Feb  7 08:55:03 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:55:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] ITU's summary of its reform meeting
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOIEJJGEAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOIEJJGEAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <1139320503.17996.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Il giorno mar, 07/02/2006 alle 10.16 +0100, William Drake ha scritto:
>  "5.2. ITU's approach to membership could be adapted to create 
>  more openness in the post WSIS environment to benefit from the 
>  knowledge of civil society about local conditions. The 
>  consequences of ITU decisions are very important to civil society 
>  as well as to the private sector.

Better than nothing...

>  "5.3. ITU publications and standards should be freely available 
>  for downloads."

This (also being one of the not-very-high-level but very practical
points I tried to push in the WGIG report) would already be a
significant improvement for the community of individuals and especially
small developers and students... when I was studying engineering at my
University, I started to enjoy reading RFCs, and I remember the shock
when I first encountered an ITU standard and I discovered that I had to
pay just to be able to read it.

-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Feb  7 11:21:33 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:21:33 -0500
Subject: [governance] Talk - Ambassador David A. Gross - "New Technologies
	and the Rise of Political Liberty"
Message-ID: <D932A72B-24C2-4A9B-B857-72A00042DAC9@lists.privaterra.org>


The 2006 Grafstein Lecture in Communications: Ambassador David A. Gross
<http://tinyurl.com/csmzn>


Date: Feb 7, 2006
Time: 04:30 PM to 06:30 PM
Place: Bennett Lecture Hall

The 2006 Grafstein Lecture in Communications


Ambassador David A. Gross

U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy
in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
United States Department of State

"New Technologies and the Rise of Political Liberty"

February 7, 2006

4:30 pm
Benett Lecture Hall
Flavelle House - Faculty of Law,University of Toronto
78 Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Click here <http://mediacast.ic.utoronto.ca/> after 16:30 EST  
(Toronto)  on Tuesday February 7 to watch the lecture live over the web




--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374



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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Feb  7 09:55:25 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:55:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9AF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

The dates of the IGF will be October, 24 - 26, 2006. But it will be confirmed only after the Geneva Consultations next week. The place is not yet fixed (Athens vs. Rhodos).
 
best
 
wolfgang
 
 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Fri Feb 10 08:36:26 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:36:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Meeting on preparation of IGF
	meeting in	Greece - 15 February
In-Reply-To: <200602080839.k188ddwB020548@homer2.tic.ch>
References: <200602080839.k188ddwB020548@homer2.tic.ch>
Message-ID: <1139578586.7290.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Il giorno mer, 08/02/2006 alle 09.39 +0100, CONGO - Philippe Dam ha
scritto:
> Dear all, 
> 
>  
> 
> This is to confirm that the meeting with George Papadatos to consult
> with NGOs on the preparations for the IGF meeting in Greece will take
> place on the 15 February, 15:00-18:00, at the CONGO Office in Geneva. 

Can I ask to civil society people that have the chance to attend this
meeting (I won't) to make the point that it is a bit confusing to add
one more day of meetings in Geneva to two other already scheduled days
of meetings, and it adds up to increasing costs etc.? 
I think we should encourage the Greek government to cooperate more with
the official IGF setup process, managed by Annan and his delegates, and
avoid unnecessary duplication of meetings and discussions, which is
particularly hard to bear for civil society people.
Thanks,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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


From veni at veni.com  Fri Feb 10 08:42:49 2006
From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:42:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Meeting on preparation of IGF
 meeting in Greece - 15 February
In-Reply-To: <1139578586.7290.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <200602080839.k188ddwB020548@homer2.tic.ch>
	<1139578586.7290.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060210083923.03841ec8@veni.com>

Vittorio and all,

At 02:36 PM 10.2.2006 '?.'ЪЪ┬Ж  +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>Can I ask to civil society people that have the chance to attend this
>meeting (I won't) to make the point that it is a bit confusing to add
>one more day of meetings in Geneva to two other already scheduled days
>of meetings, and it adds up to increasing costs etc.?
>I think we should encourage the Greek government to cooperate more with
>the official IGF setup process, managed by Annan and his delegates, and
>avoid unnecessary duplication of meetings and discussions, which is
>particularly hard to bear for civil society people.

There's more - the note for that meeting comes a 
week before it's been scheduled. That's quite 
unacceptable for anyone who does not live in Geneva.
Obviously this meeting is meant to be in favour 
of people who are in Geneva, and also to justify 
reports that "civil society has been consulted". 
Civil Society must state clearly that this is not 
the way such meetings should be organized. An 
extra day in Geneva cost a lot; a ticket bought a 
week in advance cost more than a ticket, obtained 
a month in advance. All these items are ignored 
by governments, esp. of rich countries.
As someone coming from Bulgaria, I think it's too 
much for a country in transition, or a developing 
country. Eventhough we are based in Europe.

Veni 


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


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Feb 10 11:15:10 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:15:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Meeting on preparation of IGF
	meeting in	Greece - 15 February
Message-ID: <s3ec75c6.064@gwia201.syr.edu>

Vittorio:

I totally agree with your diagnosis of the problem. Two observations, however: 

1) originally this consultation with Papadatos was going to be completely detached from the IGF consultation. So, putting it on the 15th was "an improvement" ;-). I knew of this decision well enough in advance to plan my trip to Geneva accordingly. 

2) I and others in IGP continue to call for use of online synchronous communication for these kinds of consultations. I'd encourage you to add your voice to that chorus.

>>> vb at bertola.eu.org 2/10/2006 8:36 AM >>>
[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]

Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message!
_______________________________________

Il giorno mer, 08/02/2006 alle 09.39 +0100, CONGO - Philippe Dam ha
scritto:
> Dear all, 
> 
>  
> 
> This is to confirm that the meeting with George Papadatos to consult
> with NGOs on the preparations for the IGF meeting in Greece will take
> place on the 15 February, 15:00-18:00, at the CONGO Office in Geneva. 

Can I ask to civil society people that have the chance to attend this
meeting (I won't) to make the point that it is a bit confusing to add
one more day of meetings in Geneva to two other already scheduled days
of meetings, and it adds up to increasing costs etc.? 
I think we should encourage the Greek government to cooperate more with
the official IGF setup process, managed by Annan and his delegates, and
avoid unnecessary duplication of meetings and discussions, which is
particularly hard to bear for civil society people.
Thanks,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org 
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary


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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Fri Feb 10 11:55:15 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:55:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] Greek presentation @ Malta/Diplofoundation conference
Message-ID: <4BF43E07-244F-492A-9674-96B5DFB13C95@lists.privaterra.org>

Hi all:

here in Malta at the conference organized by diplofoundation.

Papadatos gave a rather detailed presentation at the last panel on  
and about the proposed meeting in Greece and the IGF as well. The  
extent of detail and possible structure of the IGF was quite detailed.

I don't think that the formal OK has been given for Greece to host  
the IGF first meeting and the secretariat , but it sure was presented  
that way.

Jeannette , Adam, Avri, Karen, Jovan and Bertrand are also here. Will  
be interesting to hear their thoughts on Papadatos's presentation.

regards

Robert


> From: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: vb at bertola.eu.org, plenary at wsis-cs.org
> cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, bureau at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Meeting on preparation  
> of IGF meeting in Greece - 15 February
> Date-Sent: February 10, 2006 11:15:10 AM -0500
>
> Vittorio:
>
> I totally agree with your diagnosis of the problem. Two  
> observations, however:
>
> 1) originally this consultation with Papadatos was going to be  
> completely detached from the IGF consultation. So, putting it on  
> the 15th was "an improvement" ;-). I knew of this decision well  
> enough in advance to plan my trip to Geneva accordingly.
>
> 2) I and others in IGP continue to call for use of online  
> synchronous communication for these kinds of consultations. I'd  
> encourage you to add your voice to that chorus.
>
> >>> vb at bertola.eu.org 2/10/2006 8:36 AM >>>
> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the  
> entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended  
> for specific people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic  
> translation of this message!
> _______________________________________
>
> Il giorno mer, 08/02/2006 alle 09.39 +0100, CONGO - Philippe Dam ha
> scritto:
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > This is to confirm that the meeting with George Papadatos to consult
> > with NGOs on the preparations for the IGF meeting in Greece will  
> take
> > place on the 15 February, 15:00-18:00, at the CONGO Office in  
> Geneva.
>
> Can I ask to civil society people that have the chance to attend this
> meeting (I won't) to make the point that it is a bit confusing to add
> one more day of meetings in Geneva to two other already scheduled days
> of meetings, and it adds up to increasing costs etc.?
> I think we should encourage the Greek government to cooperate more  
> with
> the official IGF setup process, managed by Annan and his delegates,  
> and
> avoid unnecessary duplication of meetings and discussions, which is
> particularly hard to bear for civil society people.
> Thanks,
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] 
> <-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>



--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374



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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Sat Feb 11 04:28:33 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:28:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Greek presentation @ Malta/Diplofoundation
	conference
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOKEOFGEAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>


Hi,

Also in Malta from the caucus are Wolfgang, Peng Hwa, Willy, and myself.
Below fyi is the abstract Diplo asked for on my presentation.  I hope CS can
be pretty consistent in urging that the Tunis Agenda mandate be taken
seriously with regard to promoting application of the WSIS principles to
extant mechanisms.  Some of us discussed the other night whether it would be
useful to try to assemble a caucus statement on this and related points.
Obviously, we'd have to move very quickly to assemble a submission before
the Thursday consultation....possible?

Bill

"Mandate for a Mine Field? The Internet Governance Forum and Existing
Mechanisms"

The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other things,
the Forum is to:
.	Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting
international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that
do not fall within the scope of any existing body;
.	Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other
institutions on matters under their purview;
.	Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this
regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and
technical communities;
.	Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or
future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
countries;
.	Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
.	Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
.	Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles
in Internet Governance processes.  [emphasis added]

To fulfill these essential roles, the IG will, at a minimum, need to:  a)
receive clear and consistent political support for translating its broadly
framed mandate into specific operational initiatives; b) be endowed with
sufficient institutional capacity, including in-house analytical
capabilities and/or robust, closely linked external or subsidiary networks
of expertise; and c) develop cooperative, transparent relationships with
existing organizations and networks, both intergovernmental and private
sector, that are not marred by defensive, turf-based reactions.  Absent
these conditions, the IGF will not realize its potential, and indeed could
be reduced to a "talking shop" of limited value for promoting the global
public interest.  Nevertheless, there are grounds for concern that these
conditions may not be met.  Accordingly, this presentation will briefly
highlight some of the challenges raised by the mandate and the obstacles
that will have to be overcome.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Robert Guerra
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:55 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] Greek presentation @ Malta/Diplofoundation
> conference
>
>
> Hi all:
>
> here in Malta at the conference organized by diplofoundation.
>
> Papadatos gave a rather detailed presentation at the last panel on
> and about the proposed meeting in Greece and the IGF as well. The
> extent of detail and possible structure of the IGF was quite detailed.
>
> I don't think that the formal OK has been given for Greece to host
> the IGF first meeting and the secretariat , but it sure was presented
> that way.
>
> Jeannette , Adam, Avri, Karen, Jovan and Bertrand are also here. Will
> be interesting to hear their thoughts on Papadatos's presentation.
>
> regards
>
> Robert


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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Sat Feb 11 04:51:56 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:51:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of the Internet
	Governance Forum
Message-ID: <B2279565-BEC3-4F2D-AE94-D454CE94A1E0@lists.privaterra.org>

here are my notes from the session this morning

--


Composition and Organization of the Internet Governance Forum

Markus Kummer:

- OECD as a possible model for the IGF

- what might be a common ground - there is a srong wish among ng  
actors that the forum, should be very open, that all relevant actors  
can participate and that procedural issues don't bog it down

- wgig consultation process should be the model ( also mentioned by  
Canada in it's reply to the questionnaire)

- that stake-holders have an equal footing with governments

- the Tunis agenda mentions a bureau. this is slightly confusing as  
it seems to refer to a secretariat in the common sense. Bureau has a  
connotation that's bureaucratic. A more novel approach would be to  
call it a "program committee" instead, as its role is to prepare the  
next meeting.

- the first meeting should be kicked off with a positive agenda. For  
example, an issue that is not contra-versional - ie. spam & multilingual

- format of the issue: more conducive to have focused discussion on a  
given issue. 1-2 priority issues to be dealt in depth.Also need a  
slot for a general discussion

- Greeks have proposed that the meeting is "short & snappy". 2-3  
meeting maximum, would carry a good participation.

- Format; should not follow a plenary format, but instead a more  
dynamic and interactive exchange.

- there is a general mood to be "positive" about the IGF. Business &  
CS, and govts see it as positive. Govts don't see it as a platform to  
engage in a constructive dialogue.


Comments from the floor:

Greek Amb: Can you expand your comments on the program committee.

Kummer:

-  we need such a body. PC would be very useful to prepare a meeting.  
Perhaps after next

- the program committee should be multi-stakeholder. members of PC  
would be envisioned to have an open consultation with their  
constituency, to get ideas and suggestions.

- membership of the PC would be recommended after consultation with  
the various stakeholder groups.

- the mandate is quite "fuzzy"

Question:

- worried about the participation of developing countries on the IGF

Kummer:

- we all share this concern. there are donors that are willing to  
make a contribution to help developing countries. but it isn't that  
easy. you need a process to evaluate candidates for fellowships
- will have to use ICTs - video conference and other tools - to  
facilitate remote participation. Discussion could also be done via  
proxies of persons in the room.

Greek:

- understand the PC to provide the intellectual thrust. but who will  
provide the logistical support. Will there be a secretarait. there  
are many things that need to be clarified

Kummer:

- if PC is a good way to proceed, then it will possible. CBBI has  
questions about having a secretarait.
- let's go to the consultations next week and see
- the secretarait could provide the support for the program committee

Question:

- any views on where the meetings should be held. should they be in  
one permanent place or in alternate venues - for example in  
developing countries.

Kummer:

- Greece kicked it off proposing a first venue. However you can't  
force a country to be a host. If there isn't a permanent seat, then  
the natural seat would be Geneva.

- However once it gets settled, then it would be good to have  
geographical balance and move meetings to developping countries.

Peter Serracino Inglott, former Rector of the University of Malta

have been involved in various constitutional exercises, including the  
european constitution. Also the commonwealth attempts for constitutions.

As networks - not produce a constitution of the type onf the us or  
intl organizations, but should provide a self-description. it should  
be a unique description of a network

An obvious starting point, the internet - the network of networks -  
should not have a formal description.

- decision making power should be as distributed as possible
- need a version of the principle of subsidarity. Which is closer to  
the network structure.
- decision taking powers should be located where the flow of  
information, the relevant flow of information is more intense. This  
gives us a general principle of governance that has the kind of self- 
justifying validity.

other principles, using the pattern for the development of human rights

- right to existence & life: would mean efficiency needs to be the  
overriding principle.

- recognition that no existence is absolute. only existence in a  
sytem of relationships. justice  exercised between the different parts.

  3 parts : the nodes (ideally of equal status).
-subject to sustainability
- the most open flow possible between the nodes
- openness to communication needs to be subject to checks & balance  
to ensure its sustainability and existence
- limits : limits are produced by the very act of declaring what it  
is. pragmatic considerations

- one final consideration :  comparison between internet and common  
heritage of mankind.

Need to distinguish between the technical enterprise and the  
authority for distributing the benefits (which would reflect the  
developing world).

If the internet is a common heritage for mankind (comes from  
resources of the seabed ).

Questions:

- regarding the theoretical model. The IGF will be introduced into an  
already existing system.
- regarding efficiency : it is problematic because basing only on  
efficiency may not be the most legitimate one.

the most important aspect, in my view, is the importance of the lines  
of communication.

Answer:

- greatest sympathy with what just said. As there already is a system  
is the reason i mentioned efficiency .


Professor Ang Peng Hwa, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Title: a very modest proposal

what is the problem to solve ? who can help us address this mandate.

Essential elements:

1. a secretariat
2. advisory bodies - open and inclusive. Would be self-organizing

3. information mechanism
4. financial mechanism

- proposal that IGF run the .INT registry and use income from that  
revenue stream to help fund the forum . it's currently free, so it  
would be logically.


Meetings:

- forum might be around other meetings
- presence of developing countries essential
- no votes
- don't call it a bureau, as they will be called bureaucrats
- twice yearly meeting because internet time is faster, and more  
importantly - to build trust among the participants. meeting more  
than once a year is essential.


Question -

- In terms of models, would like to point out the UN forum on  
forests : it now has a multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaborative  
dialogue present

Question -

- Finance related question.

Question -

- See the IGF not as a forum, but as an ongoing structured dialogue.  
would not see it as one meeting and prepare for it.
- The forum should be part of the process .
- there should also be a channel where new things could be discussed.

Question -

- an important decision would be set the agenda of the first meeting  
and NOT  have it as an ongoing never ending UN process/meeting.

Question -

- Comments on looking @  the UN permanent forum on indigenous peoples.

Ayesha Hassan


- need national level consultations as well
- use of rules of procedure for intergovernmental organizations would  
not be appropriate. would recommend procedure used in WGIG

- need translation. can be an obstacle, but much needed for true  
engagement of all stakeholders

Questions:

- what will be the exact link for the UN?
- If you have UN link then you need rules of procedure. your comments.

The business community sees the forum as an outcome of a UN process,  
as a forum for discussion.
- this is a forum for discussion. The WSIS was a negotiation and had  
it's rules, this is a forum for discussion - which is more open and  
flexible.

Karen Banks

- forum should be seen as a networked decentralized process.
- the experience of the process, spirit and innovation which existed  
in the WGIG was a good one.
- the forum success : has to motivate and engage all stake-holders.  
needs to outreach and network.
- there should be a clear framework to concretizing the developing  
country focus.

- proposed that the issue of affordable internet access be a first  
issue to be discussed.

- civil society is much more diverse,and harder to consult. CS is  
firmly behind the IGF.

- Agenda setting and the engagement of CS will be very important.
- Issues seen by  CS to put forward : of affordable access, human  
rights, privacy
- importance to build capacity at the national level. APC has had  
positive experience in this regards.




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


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sat Feb 11 09:06:49 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:06:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of the Internet
 Governance Forum
In-Reply-To: <B2279565-BEC3-4F2D-AE94-D454CE94A1E0@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <B2279565-BEC3-4F2D-AE94-D454CE94A1E0@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <a06230905c0139f71fac0@[192.168.0.104]>

This is a help, for those of us at a distance.  Thanks, Robert.  Will 
look forward, if there is more.

David

>here are my notes from the session this morning
>
>--
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From seiiti at gmail.com  Sat Feb 11 09:17:18 2006
From: seiiti at gmail.com (Seiiti Arata)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:17:18 -0200
Subject: [governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of the Internet
	Governance Forum
In-Reply-To: <a06230905c0139f71fac0@192.168.0.104>
References: <B2279565-BEC3-4F2D-AE94-D454CE94A1E0@lists.privaterra.org>
	<a06230905c0139f71fac0@192.168.0.104>
Message-ID: <874fe2180602110617t1e5fcd57jba5b227df77b5dfe@mail.gmail.com>

It was a very interesting session. I also took some notes - here they
are (note that there are many different opinions together here):

- Participation in the IGF should not have heavy accreditation rules.
Consultations should be a possible model.
- Participants and stakeholders should have an equal footing.
- The Tunis agenda mentions a "bureau", and this is quite confusing
because would imply in a "secretariat" and an "intergovernmental
organization". Maybe a more positive approach would be to call it a
"programme committee". Such committee should be multistakeholder.
- It would be important to kick off a first meeting with a positive
agenda, avoiding controversial issues.
- Instead of a wide range of issues, a focused discussion would be
more productive.
- The IGF should not necessarily follow a summit format, but a panels
and breakout sessions could add more dynamics.
- Use the maximum of ICTs to get contributions and distribute
information to those not able to participate physically.
- Necessary to check who will provide logistical support in the IGF.
Probably the committee.
- Greece has offered to be the first place. If no other volunteers
appear, Geneva seems to be the most likely place to have IGF meetings.
- Efficiency has to be the most important element to look for in the IGF.
- Internet cannot have an appropriate system of governance which is
not a network system of governance. It should be little centralized.
The decision making power should be distributed as much as possible.
- Essential institution elements: a secretariat / advisory bodies / an
information mechanism / a financial mechanism.
- The IGF could be financed by acting as the registry for .int.
- Instead of advisory bodies, another possibility is to have working
groups on non controversial issues to have a continued work and the
IGF meeting would be like a plenary.
- Voting should not be necessary.
- Meetings at least 2x a year. Others proposed it once a year.
- The forum is just part of an ongoing process. There will be
discussions outside the meetings.
- Interesting to look at other experiences: UN Forum on Forests, which
moved from an intergovernmental forum, and it functions in a
transitional process from traditional UN approach to a
multistakeholder process.
- Participation of all stakeholders from all countries is critical.
- No stakeholder group that has an interest be excluded.
- Structures shall be small, efficient and truly representative.
- The formation of the group must be made in consultations with the groups.
- Workshops should be better than plenary session, with interactive dialogue.
- Build capacity at a national level is very important.


On 2/11/06, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> This is a help, for those of us at a distance.  Thanks, Robert.  Will
> look forward, if there is more.
>
> David
>
> >here are my notes from the session this morning
> >
> >--
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sat Feb 11 11:00:37 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:00:37 -0500
Subject: [governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of the Internet
 Governance Forum
In-Reply-To: <874fe2180602110617t1e5fcd57jba5b227df77b5dfe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B2279565-BEC3-4F2D-AE94-D454CE94A1E0@lists.privaterra.org>
	<a06230905c0139f71fac0@192.168.0.104>
	<874fe2180602110617t1e5fcd57jba5b227df77b5dfe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a0623090ac013b9d92b3d@[192.168.0.104]>

Thanks, Seiiti.  This is particularly helpful, to see from several 
perspectives.  Will definitely be tuned for more, if in hand.

David

At 12:17 PM -0200 2/11/06, Seiiti Arata wrote:
>It was a very interesting session. I also took some notes - here they
>are (note that there are many different opinions together here):
>
>- Participation ...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Sat Feb 11 21:00:10 2006
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:00:10 +0900
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Meeting on preparation of
 IGFmeeting in Greece - 15 February
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060210083923.03841ec8@veni.com>
References: <200602080839.k188ddwB020548@homer2.tic.ch>
	<1139578586.7290.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060210083923.03841ec8@veni.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060212105620.06d172b0@anr.org>

Even the folks close to Geneva is not finding this comfortable,
not to mention people outside Europe.

This is really bothering.

I myself will participate the first day of IGF consulting
meeting on Feb 16, arriving late night of 14th, but
have to leave 16th evening flight. Adam will join the
next day for us to cover the two-day session.

I am fortunate enough to combine the real work (that pays
for us) to come to Geneva, but still with much constraints.

If this IGF and any other "new process" really mean multi-stakeholder,
then all the stakeholders should be given the equal opportunity to
participate, as a first matter of principle. Geneva-Greece logistical
process is too Europe centric and even harmful. Many colleagues
in the south face much worse situations.

izumi


At 08:42 06/02/10 -0500, veni markovski wrote:
>Vittorio and all,
>
>At 02:36 PM 10.2.2006 '?.'��$B0x(B  +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> >Can I ask to civil society people that have the chance to attend this
> >meeting (I won't) to make the point that it is a bit confusing to add
> >one more day of meetings in Geneva to two other already scheduled days
> >of meetings, and it adds up to increasing costs etc.?
> >I think we should encourage the Greek government to cooperate more with
> >the official IGF setup process, managed by Annan and his delegates, and
> >avoid unnecessary duplication of meetings and discussions, which is
> >particularly hard to bear for civil society people.
>
>There's more - the note for that meeting comes a
>week before it's been scheduled. That's quite
>unacceptable for anyone who does not live in Geneva.
>Obviously this meeting is meant to be in favour
>of people who are in Geneva, and also to justify
>reports that "civil society has been consulted".
>Civil Society must state clearly that this is not
>the way such meetings should be organized. An
>extra day in Geneva cost a lot; a ticket bought a
>week in advance cost more than a ticket, obtained
>a month in advance. All these items are ignored
>by governments, esp. of rich countries.
>As someone coming from Bulgaria, I think it's too
>much for a country in transition, or a developing
>country. Eventhough we are based in Europe.
>
>Veni
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

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

From vb at bertola.eu.org  Sun Feb 12 08:50:03 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:50:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Meeting on preparation of
 IGFmeeting in Greece - 15 February
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060212105620.06d172b0@anr.org>
References: <200602080839.k188ddwB020548@homer2.tic.ch>	<1139578586.7290.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060210083923.03841ec8@veni.com>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20060212105620.06d172b0@anr.org>
Message-ID: <43EF3D0B.5020702@bertola.eu.org>

Izumi AIZU ha scritto:
> If this IGF and any other "new process" really mean multi-stakeholder,
> then all the stakeholders should be given the equal opportunity to
> participate, as a first matter of principle. Geneva-Greece logistical
> process is too Europe centric and even harmful. Many colleagues
> in the south face much worse situations.

Speaking with the Greek government, I would also add one more concern
with the rumour reported by Wolfgang, about the meeting being hosted not
in Athens but in Rhodes... which would mean for non-Europeans (and for
many Europeans as well!) one or two flights to a major European hub,
then one more flight to Athens, then one more domestic flight to Rhodes.
It would take me about 15 hours of travel from Torino, Italy... just
imagine from Far East, Africa or Latin America.

May we ask to those who will attend the meeting to kindly summarize the
various observations made in this thread and to submit them on our behalf?

Thanks,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Feb 13 23:04:55 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:34:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of the
	InternetGovernance Forum
In-Reply-To: <B2279565-BEC3-4F2D-AE94-D454CE94A1E0@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <200602140402.k1E42Cf2001602@trout.cpsr.org>


Robert, thanks a lot for the notes. I found the following quote from the
presentation by the former rector of Univ of Malta very interesting. 

"decision taking powers should be located where the flow of information, the
relevant flow of information is more intense. This gives us a general
principle of governance that has the kind of self- justifying validity."

It is a strange principle and justification for governance. But I must say
that it does not reside only in the fancies of this presenter. This
'principle' - with its basis in expertise and 'apparent interest' based
governance authority, without exploring other structural issues of
'information intensity' - has some significant acceptances in real world
practices. This issue has relevance in many CS related participation and
governance issues as well. And it is also an emerging principle of a
neo-liberal model of governance that favours the already entrenched, and
seeks ideological justifications for such a model. 

Reminds me also of Castells's analysis of the spiraling processes of
inclusion and exclusion of information age social structures, and the wreck
that it promises to cause.
(http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f0
05da1ab/f270e0c066f3de7780256b67005b728c/$FILE/dp114.pdf) 

Regards

Parminder 


________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:22 PM
To: Governance Caucus
Subject: [governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of the
InternetGovernance Forum

here are my notes from the session this morning

--


Composition and Organization of the Internet Governance Forum

Markus Kummer:

- OECD as a possible model for the IGF

- what might be a common ground - there is a srong wish among ng  
actors that the forum, should be very open, that all relevant actors  
can participate and that procedural issues don't bog it down

- wgig consultation process should be the model ( also mentioned by  
Canada in it's reply to the questionnaire)

- that stake-holders have an equal footing with governments

- the Tunis agenda mentions a bureau. this is slightly confusing as  
it seems to refer to a secretariat in the common sense. Bureau has a  
connotation that's bureaucratic. A more novel approach would be to  
call it a "program committee" instead, as its role is to prepare the  
next meeting.

- the first meeting should be kicked off with a positive agenda. For  
example, an issue that is not contra-versional - ie. spam & multilingual

- format of the issue: more conducive to have focused discussion on a  
given issue. 1-2 priority issues to be dealt in depth.Also need a  
slot for a general discussion

- Greeks have proposed that the meeting is "short & snappy". 2-3  
meeting maximum, would carry a good participation.

- Format; should not follow a plenary format, but instead a more  
dynamic and interactive exchange.

- there is a general mood to be "positive" about the IGF. Business &  
CS, and govts see it as positive. Govts don't see it as a platform to  
engage in a constructive dialogue.


Comments from the floor:

Greek Amb: Can you expand your comments on the program committee.

Kummer:

-  we need such a body. PC would be very useful to prepare a meeting.  
Perhaps after next

- the program committee should be multi-stakeholder. members of PC  
would be envisioned to have an open consultation with their  
constituency, to get ideas and suggestions.

- membership of the PC would be recommended after consultation with  
the various stakeholder groups.

- the mandate is quite "fuzzy"

Question:

- worried about the participation of developing countries on the IGF

Kummer:

- we all share this concern. there are donors that are willing to  
make a contribution to help developing countries. but it isn't that  
easy. you need a process to evaluate candidates for fellowships
- will have to use ICTs - video conference and other tools - to  
facilitate remote participation. Discussion could also be done via  
proxies of persons in the room.

Greek:

- understand the PC to provide the intellectual thrust. but who will  
provide the logistical support. Will there be a secretarait. there  
are many things that need to be clarified

Kummer:

- if PC is a good way to proceed, then it will possible. CBBI has  
questions about having a secretarait.
- let's go to the consultations next week and see
- the secretarait could provide the support for the program committee

Question:

- any views on where the meetings should be held. should they be in  
one permanent place or in alternate venues - for example in  
developing countries.

Kummer:

- Greece kicked it off proposing a first venue. However you can't  
force a country to be a host. If there isn't a permanent seat, then  
the natural seat would be Geneva.

- However once it gets settled, then it would be good to have  
geographical balance and move meetings to developping countries.

Peter Serracino Inglott, former Rector of the University of Malta

have been involved in various constitutional exercises, including the  
european constitution. Also the commonwealth attempts for constitutions.

As networks - not produce a constitution of the type onf the us or  
intl organizations, but should provide a self-description. it should  
be a unique description of a network

An obvious starting point, the internet - the network of networks -  
should not have a formal description.

- decision making power should be as distributed as possible
- need a version of the principle of subsidarity. Which is closer to  
the network structure.
- decision taking powers should be located where the flow of  
information, the relevant flow of information is more intense. This  
gives us a general principle of governance that has the kind of self- 
justifying validity.

other principles, using the pattern for the development of human rights

- right to existence & life: would mean efficiency needs to be the  
overriding principle.

- recognition that no existence is absolute. only existence in a  
sytem of relationships. justice  exercised between the different parts.

  3 parts : the nodes (ideally of equal status).
-subject to sustainability
- the most open flow possible between the nodes
- openness to communication needs to be subject to checks & balance  
to ensure its sustainability and existence
- limits : limits are produced by the very act of declaring what it  
is. pragmatic considerations

- one final consideration :  comparison between internet and common  
heritage of mankind.

Need to distinguish between the technical enterprise and the  
authority for distributing the benefits (which would reflect the  
developing world).

If the internet is a common heritage for mankind (comes from  
resources of the seabed ).

Questions:

- regarding the theoretical model. The IGF will be introduced into an  
already existing system.
- regarding efficiency : it is problematic because basing only on  
efficiency may not be the most legitimate one.

the most important aspect, in my view, is the importance of the lines  
of communication.

Answer:

- greatest sympathy with what just said. As there already is a system  
is the reason i mentioned efficiency .


Professor Ang Peng Hwa, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Title: a very modest proposal

what is the problem to solve ? who can help us address this mandate.

Essential elements:

1. a secretariat
2. advisory bodies - open and inclusive. Would be self-organizing

3. information mechanism
4. financial mechanism

- proposal that IGF run the .INT registry and use income from that  
revenue stream to help fund the forum . it's currently free, so it  
would be logically.


Meetings:

- forum might be around other meetings
- presence of developing countries essential
- no votes
- don't call it a bureau, as they will be called bureaucrats
- twice yearly meeting because internet time is faster, and more  
importantly - to build trust among the participants. meeting more  
than once a year is essential.


Question -

- In terms of models, would like to point out the UN forum on  
forests : it now has a multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaborative  
dialogue present

Question -

- Finance related question.

Question -

- See the IGF not as a forum, but as an ongoing structured dialogue.  
would not see it as one meeting and prepare for it.
- The forum should be part of the process .
- there should also be a channel where new things could be discussed.

Question -

- an important decision would be set the agenda of the first meeting  
and NOT  have it as an ongoing never ending UN process/meeting.

Question -

- Comments on looking @  the UN permanent forum on indigenous peoples.

Ayesha Hassan


- need national level consultations as well
- use of rules of procedure for intergovernmental organizations would  
not be appropriate. would recommend procedure used in WGIG

- need translation. can be an obstacle, but much needed for true  
engagement of all stakeholders

Questions:

- what will be the exact link for the UN?
- If you have UN link then you need rules of procedure. your comments.

The business community sees the forum as an outcome of a UN process,  
as a forum for discussion.
- this is a forum for discussion. The WSIS was a negotiation and had  
it's rules, this is a forum for discussion - which is more open and  
flexible.

Karen Banks

- forum should be seen as a networked decentralized process.
- the experience of the process, spirit and innovation which existed  
in the WGIG was a good one.
- the forum success : has to motivate and engage all stake-holders.  
needs to outreach and network.
- there should be a clear framework to concretizing the developing  
country focus.

- proposed that the issue of affordable internet access be a first  
issue to be discussed.

- civil society is much more diverse,and harder to consult. CS is  
firmly behind the IGF.

- Agenda setting and the engagement of CS will be very important.
- Issues seen by  CS to put forward : of affordable access, human  
rights, privacy
- importance to build capacity at the national level. APC has had  
positive experience in this regards.




_______________________________________________
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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Tue Feb 14 07:16:39 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:16:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of
 the	InternetGovernance Forum
In-Reply-To: <200602140402.k1E42Cf2001602@trout.cpsr.org>
References: <200602140402.k1E42Cf2001602@trout.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>



Parminder wrote:
> Robert, thanks a lot for the notes. I found the following quote from the
> presentation by the former rector of Univ of Malta very interesting. 
> 
> "decision taking powers should be located where the flow of information, the
> relevant flow of information is more intense. This gives us a general
> principle of governance that has the kind of self- justifying validity."
> 
> It is a strange principle and justification for governance. But I must say
> that it does not reside only in the fancies of this presenter. This
> 'principle' - with its basis in expertise and 'apparent interest' based
> governance authority, without exploring other structural issues of
> 'information intensity' - has some significant acceptances in real world
> practices. This issue has relevance in many CS related participation and
> governance issues as well. And it is also an emerging principle of a
> neo-liberal model of governance that favours the already entrenched, and
> seeks ideological justifications for such a model. 

Hi Parminder,

I don't know how important the physical location of the forum will 
actually be since it is not expected to meet that often (once a year 
many people say). The location of the secretariat might be politically 
relevant because it has implications regarding the relationship to UN 
organizations and other bodies.

Very roughly put, there seem to be two different approaches regarding 
the location of international organizations or fora. The UN model tends 
to found organizations in the physical neighborhood of other UN bodies 
because there are already lots of embassies or missions, which reduce 
the cost of participating in these organizations for all countries. 
Because of its infrastructure,  Geneva is a relatively cheap location.

ICANN represents the other model. Its meeting places rotate across the 
continents as part of an outreach strategy. ICANN's meeting venues are 
at times exotic and not always easy to reach. I remember last year's 
meeting in Mar del Plata, which involved a 3 or 4 hours bus drive from 
Buenos Aires. The reason why I remember this lengthy trip is that the 
participation from other latin american countries was disappointingly 
low. As it turns out, many governments in this region lack the capacity 
  to delegate staff for these specific tasks.

Choosing meetings places in developing areas are of symbolic value but 
they don't change much unless they are embedded in more comprehensive 
strategies of capacity building towards all stakeholders and ministries.

Does the caucus have an opinion regarding the question of the 
secretariat's location? (Perhaps I should raise this question in a 
seperate email as it concerns the Geneva meeting later this week.)

jeanette
> 
> Reminds me also of Castells's analysis of the spiraling processes of
> inclusion and exclusion of information age social structures, and the wreck
> that it promises to cause.
> (http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f0
> 05da1ab/f270e0c066f3de7780256b67005b728c/$FILE/dp114.pdf) 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
> 91-80-26654134
> www.ITforChange.net 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra
> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:22 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of the
> InternetGovernance Forum
> 
> here are my notes from the session this morning
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Composition and Organization of the Internet Governance Forum
> 
> Markus Kummer:
> 
> - OECD as a possible model for the IGF
> 
> - what might be a common ground - there is a srong wish among ng  
> actors that the forum, should be very open, that all relevant actors  
> can participate and that procedural issues don't bog it down
> 
> - wgig consultation process should be the model ( also mentioned by  
> Canada in it's reply to the questionnaire)
> 
> - that stake-holders have an equal footing with governments
> 
> - the Tunis agenda mentions a bureau. this is slightly confusing as  
> it seems to refer to a secretariat in the common sense. Bureau has a  
> connotation that's bureaucratic. A more novel approach would be to  
> call it a "program committee" instead, as its role is to prepare the  
> next meeting.
> 
> - the first meeting should be kicked off with a positive agenda. For  
> example, an issue that is not contra-versional - ie. spam & multilingual
> 
> - format of the issue: more conducive to have focused discussion on a  
> given issue. 1-2 priority issues to be dealt in depth.Also need a  
> slot for a general discussion
> 
> - Greeks have proposed that the meeting is "short & snappy". 2-3  
> meeting maximum, would carry a good participation.
> 
> - Format; should not follow a plenary format, but instead a more  
> dynamic and interactive exchange.
> 
> - there is a general mood to be "positive" about the IGF. Business &  
> CS, and govts see it as positive. Govts don't see it as a platform to  
> engage in a constructive dialogue.
> 
> 
> Comments from the floor:
> 
> Greek Amb: Can you expand your comments on the program committee.
> 
> Kummer:
> 
> -  we need such a body. PC would be very useful to prepare a meeting.  
> Perhaps after next
> 
> - the program committee should be multi-stakeholder. members of PC  
> would be envisioned to have an open consultation with their  
> constituency, to get ideas and suggestions.
> 
> - membership of the PC would be recommended after consultation with  
> the various stakeholder groups.
> 
> - the mandate is quite "fuzzy"
> 
> Question:
> 
> - worried about the participation of developing countries on the IGF
> 
> Kummer:
> 
> - we all share this concern. there are donors that are willing to  
> make a contribution to help developing countries. but it isn't that  
> easy. you need a process to evaluate candidates for fellowships
> - will have to use ICTs - video conference and other tools - to  
> facilitate remote participation. Discussion could also be done via  
> proxies of persons in the room.
> 
> Greek:
> 
> - understand the PC to provide the intellectual thrust. but who will  
> provide the logistical support. Will there be a secretarait. there  
> are many things that need to be clarified
> 
> Kummer:
> 
> - if PC is a good way to proceed, then it will possible. CBBI has  
> questions about having a secretarait.
> - let's go to the consultations next week and see
> - the secretarait could provide the support for the program committee
> 
> Question:
> 
> - any views on where the meetings should be held. should they be in  
> one permanent place or in alternate venues - for example in  
> developing countries.
> 
> Kummer:
> 
> - Greece kicked it off proposing a first venue. However you can't  
> force a country to be a host. If there isn't a permanent seat, then  
> the natural seat would be Geneva.
> 
> - However once it gets settled, then it would be good to have  
> geographical balance and move meetings to developping countries.
> 
> Peter Serracino Inglott, former Rector of the University of Malta
> 
> have been involved in various constitutional exercises, including the  
> european constitution. Also the commonwealth attempts for constitutions.
> 
> As networks - not produce a constitution of the type onf the us or  
> intl organizations, but should provide a self-description. it should  
> be a unique description of a network
> 
> An obvious starting point, the internet - the network of networks -  
> should not have a formal description.
> 
> - decision making power should be as distributed as possible
> - need a version of the principle of subsidarity. Which is closer to  
> the network structure.
> - decision taking powers should be located where the flow of  
> information, the relevant flow of information is more intense. This  
> gives us a general principle of governance that has the kind of self- 
> justifying validity.
> 
> other principles, using the pattern for the development of human rights
> 
> - right to existence & life: would mean efficiency needs to be the  
> overriding principle.
> 
> - recognition that no existence is absolute. only existence in a  
> sytem of relationships. justice  exercised between the different parts.
> 
>   3 parts : the nodes (ideally of equal status).
> -subject to sustainability
> - the most open flow possible between the nodes
> - openness to communication needs to be subject to checks & balance  
> to ensure its sustainability and existence
> - limits : limits are produced by the very act of declaring what it  
> is. pragmatic considerations
> 
> - one final consideration :  comparison between internet and common  
> heritage of mankind.
> 
> Need to distinguish between the technical enterprise and the  
> authority for distributing the benefits (which would reflect the  
> developing world).
> 
> If the internet is a common heritage for mankind (comes from  
> resources of the seabed ).
> 
> Questions:
> 
> - regarding the theoretical model. The IGF will be introduced into an  
> already existing system.
> - regarding efficiency : it is problematic because basing only on  
> efficiency may not be the most legitimate one.
> 
> the most important aspect, in my view, is the importance of the lines  
> of communication.
> 
> Answer:
> 
> - greatest sympathy with what just said. As there already is a system  
> is the reason i mentioned efficiency .
> 
> 
> Professor Ang Peng Hwa, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
> 
> Title: a very modest proposal
> 
> what is the problem to solve ? who can help us address this mandate.
> 
> Essential elements:
> 
> 1. a secretariat
> 2. advisory bodies - open and inclusive. Would be self-organizing
> 
> 3. information mechanism
> 4. financial mechanism
> 
> - proposal that IGF run the .INT registry and use income from that  
> revenue stream to help fund the forum . it's currently free, so it  
> would be logically.
> 
> 
> Meetings:
> 
> - forum might be around other meetings
> - presence of developing countries essential
> - no votes
> - don't call it a bureau, as they will be called bureaucrats
> - twice yearly meeting because internet time is faster, and more  
> importantly - to build trust among the participants. meeting more  
> than once a year is essential.
> 
> 
> Question -
> 
> - In terms of models, would like to point out the UN forum on  
> forests : it now has a multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaborative  
> dialogue present
> 
> Question -
> 
> - Finance related question.
> 
> Question -
> 
> - See the IGF not as a forum, but as an ongoing structured dialogue.  
> would not see it as one meeting and prepare for it.
> - The forum should be part of the process .
> - there should also be a channel where new things could be discussed.
> 
> Question -
> 
> - an important decision would be set the agenda of the first meeting  
> and NOT  have it as an ongoing never ending UN process/meeting.
> 
> Question -
> 
> - Comments on looking @  the UN permanent forum on indigenous peoples.
> 
> Ayesha Hassan
> 
> 
> - need national level consultations as well
> - use of rules of procedure for intergovernmental organizations would  
> not be appropriate. would recommend procedure used in WGIG
> 
> - need translation. can be an obstacle, but much needed for true  
> engagement of all stakeholders
> 
> Questions:
> 
> - what will be the exact link for the UN?
> - If you have UN link then you need rules of procedure. your comments.
> 
> The business community sees the forum as an outcome of a UN process,  
> as a forum for discussion.
> - this is a forum for discussion. The WSIS was a negotiation and had  
> it's rules, this is a forum for discussion - which is more open and  
> flexible.
> 
> Karen Banks
> 
> - forum should be seen as a networked decentralized process.
> - the experience of the process, spirit and innovation which existed  
> in the WGIG was a good one.
> - the forum success : has to motivate and engage all stake-holders.  
> needs to outreach and network.
> - there should be a clear framework to concretizing the developing  
> country focus.
> 
> - proposed that the issue of affordable internet access be a first  
> issue to be discussed.
> 
> - civil society is much more diverse,and harder to consult. CS is  
> firmly behind the IGF.
> 
> - Agenda setting and the engagement of CS will be very important.
> - Issues seen by  CS to put forward : of affordable access, human  
> rights, privacy
> - importance to build capacity at the national level. APC has had  
> positive experience in this regards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From veni at veni.com  Tue Feb 14 07:28:57 2006
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:28:57 -0500
Subject: [governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of
 the	InternetGovernance Forum
In-Reply-To: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
References: <200602140402.k1E42Cf2001602@trout.cpsr.org>
	<43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214072245.03c3d450@veni.com>

At 01:16 PM 14.2.2006 '?.'  +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>I don't know how important the physical location of the forum will
>actually be since it is not expected to meet that often (once a year
>many people say). The location of the secretariat might be politically
>relevant because it has implications regarding the relationship to UN
>organizations and other bodies.

Yes, the forum will be meeting once a year, but no - the Secretariat 
does not need to be necessarily in Geneva or New York (although it 
may be useful).

>the cost of participating in these organizations for all countries.
>Because of its infrastructure,  Geneva is a relatively cheap location.

Actually I may argue about New York, where the level of participation 
is higher, because the Secretary General is also there.

>Does the caucus have an opinion regarding the question of the
>secretariat's location? (Perhaps I should raise this question in a
>seperate email as it concerns the Geneva meeting later this week.)

Jeanette,
we don't have to forget that there might be also a steering 
committee, and then, when it meets, it has to meet in a major hub, 
located near the Secretariate, unless of course, it's easier to fly 
3-4 secretariat people somewhere. In this case, the Secretariat can 
be anywhere, as long as the SC meets in such a location.

By all means, it will be extremly useful if the IG Caucus puts down 
on Thu/Fri the idea of contributing with one person to the 
Secretariat and to the (eventually) SG. It could be someone for who 
we may do some fundraising. That brings me back to my previous 
proposal to form a non-profit or to use an existing one, that will do 
such fundraising for facilitation of participation at the IG meetings.

best,
veni 

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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb 14 11:37:59 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:37:59 +0000
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <s3f1bec0.063@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3f1bec0.063@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214163210.01f3beb0@gn.apc.org>

hi milton

 > - Secretariat Location (Geneva?)
> > - IGF meetings (1 per year?)
> > - Steering Group (multistakeholder, of course)
>
>If these are the "hot" topics I can only wonder what the cold ones 
>are. Has there been no discussion of the equal status of 
>participants, of the procedures by which working groups will be 
>formed, or whether there will indeed be a working group structure? 
>Was there any discussion of agenda topics?

yes, of course there are hotter topics ;), and i want to bring up a hot one..

issues - should the forum address questions of access - as APC will 
certainly advocate that it does and i'm expecting a whole host of 
negative reactions, even from our closest colleagues, some on this list ;)

canada has already explicitly (well, maybe not explicitly) said that 
the IGF should NOT address questions of access - but it begs the 
qurstion for me of who shall.. and others will say - yes, this is of 
course an important issue, but what's it got to do with global governance?

we see that we need to have a lot more discusion with people on this 
topic - as i think it's fair to say that we do not enjoy support from 
many on the caucus on this issue, yet..

milton - during the malta conference, there was an overriding 
emphasis on the need for participation 'on an equal footing' in the 
IGF, that the IGF be seen as a process, not a meeting - and yes, i 
would say majority support for the concept of working groups

as to how they are constituted no, we didn't discuss this..

maybe it's having just come back from malta where these hot issues 
were discussed (in fact, we didn't really even touch on the ones veni 
noted above) - thankfully for me, there was serious attention paid to 
the issue of participation of developing country participants and 
capacity building..

karen

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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb 14 11:37:59 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:37:59 +0000
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <s3f1bec0.063@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3f1bec0.063@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214163210.01f3beb0@gn.apc.org>

hi milton

 > - Secretariat Location (Geneva?)
> > - IGF meetings (1 per year?)
> > - Steering Group (multistakeholder, of course)
>
>If these are the "hot" topics I can only wonder what the cold ones 
>are. Has there been no discussion of the equal status of 
>participants, of the procedures by which working groups will be 
>formed, or whether there will indeed be a working group structure? 
>Was there any discussion of agenda topics?

yes, of course there are hotter topics ;), and i want to bring up a hot one..

issues - should the forum address questions of access - as APC will 
certainly advocate that it does and i'm expecting a whole host of 
negative reactions, even from our closest colleagues, some on this list ;)

canada has already explicitly (well, maybe not explicitly) said that 
the IGF should NOT address questions of access - but it begs the 
qurstion for me of who shall.. and others will say - yes, this is of 
course an important issue, but what's it got to do with global governance?

we see that we need to have a lot more discusion with people on this 
topic - as i think it's fair to say that we do not enjoy support from 
many on the caucus on this issue, yet..

milton - during the malta conference, there was an overriding 
emphasis on the need for participation 'on an equal footing' in the 
IGF, that the IGF be seen as a process, not a meeting - and yes, i 
would say majority support for the concept of working groups

as to how they are constituted no, we didn't discuss this..

maybe it's having just come back from malta where these hot issues 
were discussed (in fact, we didn't really even touch on the ones veni 
noted above) - thankfully for me, there was serious attention paid to 
the issue of participation of developing country participants and 
capacity building..

karen

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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb 14 11:44:57 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:44:57 +0000
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>

hi jeanette

could you say a little more on this? as we had entertained the idea 
of at least an element of the secretariat function rotating - i'm not 
even sure what that could mean,  certainly, that there be a permanent 
core of the secretariat that remains firmly fixed..

karen

>Some months ago I would have supported the concept of a distributed
>secretariat. I remember Avri and I discussing the idea to have a
>rotating secretariat moving from one international org to another. Today
>I'd say this is a recipe for desaster. We have to keep in mind that
>these international organizations are competing for tasks and are
>disagreeing in terms of regulatory paradigms.
>
>What I find much more important today is that the secretariat takes a
>neutral stance on such matters and tries to remain light-weight. Ideas
>like distributed secretariat should be considered in the future once the
>forum is a well established, widely acknowledged institution.


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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Tue Feb 14 10:58:29 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:58:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>	
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>



Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Dear all,
>  
> On that topic, please make the distinction between the location of the 
> secretariat and the location of the activities of the Forum.
>  
> I support the initial core of the secretariat to be located in Geneva, 
> for all the reasons already mentionned by others.
>  
> But the activities of the Forum (annual meetings, possible thematic 
> meetings in betwee and/or working groups meetings if any) can be 
> distributed in various locations, *and should be*.
>  
> Furthermore, there is no reason to force a single location in the long 
> term for secretariat activities. I would support indeed the notion of a 
> "distributed secretariat" progressively built around a certain number of 
> locations, to take advantage of in-kind support (for instance secondment 
> by certain entities), address certain specific issues and facilitate 
> inclusiveness.

Some months ago I would have supported the concept of a distributed 
secretariat. I remember Avri and I discussing the idea to have a 
rotating secretariat moving from one international org to another. Today 
I'd say this is a recipe for desaster. We have to keep in mind that 
these international organizations are competing for tasks and are 
disagreeing in terms of regulatory paradigms.

What I find much more important today is that the secretariat takes a 
neutral stance on such matters and tries to remain light-weight. Ideas 
like distributed secretariat should be considered in the future once the 
forum is a well established, widely acknowledged institution.

jeanette


>  
> The notion of a single secretariat location and a single venue for 
> events points towards the creation of a totally traditionnal 
> inter-governmental institution. Is this what we really need/want ? How 
> long before we discuss the creation of "permanent representatives" to 
> the IGF, with income-tax free status and the respective perks ? And the 
> special building of the Forum ?
>  
> Please keep the IGF in the spirit of the Internet, as discussed in Malta 
> : flexible, networked, distributed and scalable. 
>  
> Bertrand 
> 
>  
> On 2/14/06, *William Drake* <drake at hei.unige.ch 
> <mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org>
>      > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org>]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> 
>      > Does the caucus have an opinion regarding the question of the
>      > secretariat's location? (Perhaps I should raise this question in a
>      > seperate email as it concerns the Geneva meeting later this week.)
> 
>     I'd bet it will need to be a UN seat, including because of the missions
>     (case in point, as of last week anyway the US was planning on sending
>     mission people rather than Washingtonians to the consultation
>     tomorrow...).
>     While I'd be happy to have more excuses to visit New York, this
>     wouldn't
>     make sense due to costs, the lack of relevant international orgs
>     with which
>     the forum will need to interact, and the difficulties many people
>     experience
>     getting in and out of the US these days.  Plus, related to the
>     latter, I
>     doubt many countries would be enthused about the US under any
>     circumstances
>     right now.   With similar considerations in mind, it would not make
>     sense to
>     put it in the other spots being loosely mentioned, e.g. Athens,
>     Budapest,
>     Addis, Nairobi, etc.   In comparison, the arguments against Geneva
>     are not
>     obvious.  If resources allow, there should also be geographically
>     dispersed
>     meetings, either the annuals or parallel regionals.
> 
>     More generally, given the complex way the politics are shaping up, I
>     would
>     suggest that we should be supportive of a UN-coordinated process
>     building
>     out from prior experience.  CS would lose in any other configuration.
> 
>     Best,
> 
>     Bill
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     governance mailing list
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto: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


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 10:46:27 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:46:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

On that topic, please make the distinction between the location of the
secretariat and the location of the activities of the Forum.

I support the initial core of the secretariat to be located in Geneva, for
all the reasons already mentionned by others.

But the activities of the Forum (annual meetings, possible thematic meetings
in betwee and/or working groups meetings if any) can be distributed in
various locations, *and should be*.

Furthermore, there is no reason to force a single location in the long term
for secretariat activities. I would support indeed the notion of a
"distributed secretariat" progressively built around a certain number of
locations, to take advantage of in-kind support (for instance secondment by
certain entities), address certain specific issues and facilitate
inclusiveness.

The notion of a single secretariat location and a single venue for
events points towards the creation of a totally traditionnal
inter-governmental institution. Is this what we really need/want ? How
long before we discuss the creation of "permanent representatives" to the
IGF, with income-tax free status and the respective perks ? And the special
building of the Forum ?

Please keep the IGF in the spirit of the Internet, as discussed in Malta :
flexible, networked, distributed and scalable.

Bertrand


On 2/14/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>
> > Does the caucus have an opinion regarding the question of the
> > secretariat's location? (Perhaps I should raise this question in a
> > seperate email as it concerns the Geneva meeting later this week.)
>
> I'd bet it will need to be a UN seat, including because of the missions
> (case in point, as of last week anyway the US was planning on sending
> mission people rather than Washingtonians to the consultation
> tomorrow...).
> While I'd be happy to have more excuses to visit New York, this wouldn't
> make sense due to costs, the lack of relevant international orgs with
> which
> the forum will need to interact, and the difficulties many people
> experience
> getting in and out of the US these days.  Plus, related to the latter, I
> doubt many countries would be enthused about the US under any
> circumstances
> right now.   With similar considerations in mind, it would not make sense
> to
> put it in the other spots being loosely mentioned, e.g. Athens, Budapest,
> Addis, Nairobi, etc.   In comparison, the arguments against Geneva are not
> obvious.  If resources allow, there should also be geographically
> dispersed
> meetings, either the annuals or parallel regionals.
>
> More generally, given the complex way the politics are shaping up, I would
> suggest that we should be supportive of a UN-coordinated process building
> out from prior experience.  CS would lose in any other configuration.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060214/702e9564/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From veni at veni.com  Tue Feb 14 09:45:13 2006
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:45:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214094136.0427f830@veni.com>

At 03:33 PM 14.2.2006 '?.'  +0100, William Drake wrote:

>right now.   With similar considerations in mind, it would not make sense to
>put it in the other spots being loosely mentioned, e.g. Athens, Budapest,
>Addis, Nairobi, etc.   In comparison, the arguments against Geneva are not
>obvious.

The only good argument I can think of in favour of Geneva is, that 
the previous Secretariat - of the WGIG - was working fine there. 
Otherwise, travel to Geneva is also with visas. The argument against 
would be that in the case of other places, the expenses might be 
covered by the host country?

>If resources allow, there should also be geographically dispersed
>meetings, either the annuals or parallel regionals.

And this is not relevant for the work of the Secretariat. For the IGF 
or the Steering Group - yes, but the Secretariat does not need to 
meet in different places.

>More generally, given the complex way the politics are shaping up, I would
>suggest that we should be supportive of a UN-coordinated process building
>out from prior experience.  CS would lose in any other configuration.

I am not so sure that CS will lose, but otherwise I agree - the UN 
has gain some momentum for the CS. We have to use it.

veni 

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Feb 14 11:03:05 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:03:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9E1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Veni:
>* meetings once a year?

Karen:
yes.. i think so - but this is only the 'milestone' annual meeting, i
think we have to focus on the Process of the IGF as much as where the
secretariat is based, or where the annual meeting might be held. 
 
Wolfgang:
This is crucial. IGF is " a process" , with an annual highlight in form of the phyiscal F2F meeting. "Friedns of the Forum" should be free to organize in between smaller local or regional meetings under the IGF Logo, producing input for the process. We have to conceptualize furhter in detail what "bottom up" really means, otherwise the IGF will become another top down mechanism. 
 
Wolfgang
 
  
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Feb 14 10:38:10 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:38:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9E0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>


 

Perhaps you can bring our views on the hot topics:

- Secretariat Location (Geneva?)

Geneva


- IGF meetings (1 per year?)


Once a year 

- Steering Group (multistakeholder, of course)


My proposal is to have a small Steering committee (for 2.5 years, followed by another one for another 2.5. years) and to have a special annual programme commitee for each of the planned five meetings.


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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb 14 10:51:45 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:51:45 +0000
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>
	<43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214154558.0335bd68@gn.apc.org>

hi

> > - Secretariat Location (Geneva?)
> > - IGF meetings (1 per year?)
> > - Steering Group (multistakeholder, of course)
>
>Does anybody disagree with
>
>*Geneva as location for the secretariat?

we would support geneva as the location for the permanent core 
secretariat, considering the points veni and bill raised  -

>* meetings once a year?

yes.. i think so - but this is only the 'milestone' annual meeting, i 
think we have to focus on the Process of the IGF as much as where the 
secretariat is based, or where the annual meeting might be held. By 
not doing so, it is totally reasonable to people to feel that the IGF 
will be totally northern centric. Although the annual meeting is an 
improtant milestone and will bring accountability to the process, 
what happens during an annual cycle for me, is more important. In 
some ways, i make the analagy with the preparatory prepcom process, 
and the summit events. Anyone going to the Summit, and not 
participating in the process, had an entirely different perpspective 
on the value and relevance of WSIS, from those who did participate in 
the process.

>Do people like the idea suggested in Malta to call the steering group/
>bureau rather a program committee?

we would not support a bureau - and would prefer not to use the term 
'steering xxxx' - but rather, programme committee(s), advisory 
groups, working groups..

karen

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Tue Feb 14 10:48:56 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:48:56 -0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <43F1FBE8.1040600@rits.org.br>

I agree, although I will be arriving a bit late. Also agree to the
Chinese option. Please bear with me, as I cannot hear well in noisy,
smoky, alcohol-soaked places :)

rgds

--c.a.

William Drake wrote:

> Hi,
>  
> While we didn't prepare a submission, it would make sense for those
> who will be attending the consultation to talk prior about what we
> want to support or oppose, no?  There could be some quite bad ideas
> thrown on the table, ideally we'd have some idea in advance about
> possible shared responses.  Since people know it and it's easy, shall
> we meet at Les Brasseurs at 7:30pm? 
> www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm
> <http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm>   If people can
> let me know privately whether they can make it and the body count is
> sufficient, I can try to reserve the private room.
>  
> BTW there's a very reasonably priced and good Chinese place nearby we
> could head to after a drink, if anyone's as unenthused about
> more flammenkueches as I am...
>  
> Bill
>  
> *******************************************************
> William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch <mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch>
>
> Director, Project on the Information
>
>   Revolution and Global Governance
>
>   Graduate Institute for International Studies
>
>   Geneva, Switzerland
> President, Computer Professionals for
>    Social Responsibility
> http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
> *******************************************************
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>  
>

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
********************************************
* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux   *
* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
* com software livre e de código aberto,   *
* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
* Coletivo Digital.                        *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
********************************************


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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue Feb 14 09:33:56 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:33:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann

> Does the caucus have an opinion regarding the question of the
> secretariat's location? (Perhaps I should raise this question in a
> seperate email as it concerns the Geneva meeting later this week.)

I'd bet it will need to be a UN seat, including because of the missions
(case in point, as of last week anyway the US was planning on sending
mission people rather than Washingtonians to the consultation tomorrow...).
While I'd be happy to have more excuses to visit New York, this wouldn't
make sense due to costs, the lack of relevant international orgs with which
the forum will need to interact, and the difficulties many people experience
getting in and out of the US these days.  Plus, related to the latter, I
doubt many countries would be enthused about the US under any circumstances
right now.   With similar considerations in mind, it would not make sense to
put it in the other spots being loosely mentioned, e.g. Athens, Budapest,
Addis, Nairobi, etc.   In comparison, the arguments against Geneva are not
obvious.  If resources allow, there should also be geographically dispersed
meetings, either the annuals or parallel regionals.

More generally, given the complex way the politics are shaping up, I would
suggest that we should be supportive of a UN-coordinated process building
out from prior experience.  CS would lose in any other configuration.

Best,

Bill


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


From ca at rits.org.br  Tue Feb 14 10:46:00 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:46:00 -0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9E0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9E0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <43F1FB38.5050905@rits.org.br>

Fine with me, Wolf.

rgds

--c.a.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

> 
>
>Perhaps you can bring our views on the hot topics:
>
>- Secretariat Location (Geneva?)
>
>Geneva
>
>
>- IGF meetings (1 per year?)
>
>
>Once a year 
>
>- Steering Group (multistakeholder, of course)
>
>
>My proposal is to have a small Steering committee (for 2.5 years, followed by another one for another 2.5. years) and to have a special annual programme commitee for each of the planned five meetings.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>  
>

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
********************************************
* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux   *
* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
* com software livre e de código aberto,   *
* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
* Coletivo Digital.                        *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
********************************************


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


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Feb 14 11:27:44 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:27:44 -0500
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
Message-ID: <s3f1bec0.063@gwia201.syr.edu>

Veni Markovski wrote:
> Perhaps you can bring our views on the hot topics:
> 
> - Secretariat Location (Geneva?)
> - IGF meetings (1 per year?)
> - Steering Group (multistakeholder, of course)

If these are the "hot" topics I can only wonder what the cold ones are. Has there been no discussion of the equal status of participants, of the procedures by which working groups will be formed, or whether there will indeed be a working group structure? Was there any discussion of agenda topics? 

Jeanette Hofmann:
>Does anybody disagree with
>*Geneva as location for the secretariat?

Agree with Lee M. that this is an insider fight with little consequence to CS; other than opposing alternatives that would make it difficult or hostile to us we should not get involved. 

>* meetings once a year?
>
>Do people like the idea suggested in Malta to call the steering group/ 
>bureau rather a program committee?

The difference is....nominal. Of course program committee is better in case someone gets drunken with the "power" of "steering" but this is not a very important issue either. 






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


From fausett at lextext.com  Tue Feb 14 11:49:51 2006
From: fausett at lextext.com (Bret Fausett)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:49:51 -0800
Subject: [governance] Who is attending IGF consultations?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>	<43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214154558.0335bd68@gn.apc.org>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <43F20A2F.4010203@lextext.com>

I will be attending also. Arriving Wednesday afternoon and staying at 
the Warwick Hotel. Cell number: +1-213-820-6153.

              Bret

>jeanette, adam, izumi, carlos, wolfgang, bill, veni, karen, bertrand
>
>who else?
>
>karen
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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


From james.love at cptech.org  Tue Feb 14 11:52:16 2006
From: james.love at cptech.org (James Love)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:52:16 -0500
Subject: [governance] Who is attending IGF consultations?
In-Reply-To: <43F20A2F.4010203@lextext.com>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>	<43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214154558.0335bd68@gn.apc.org>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20A2F.4010203@lextext.com>
Message-ID: <53C6A6A8-3401-49CC-ABD2-3114269B0285@cptech.org>

Thiru Balasubramaniam, who runs our Geneva office,  will be attending  
for CPTech.

mobile: +41.76.508.0997
email:  thiur at cptech.org


On Feb 14, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> I will be attending also. Arriving Wednesday afternoon and staying at
> the Warwick Hotel. Cell number: +1-213-820-6153.
>
>               Bret
>
>> jeanette, adam, izumi, carlos, wolfgang, bill, veni, karen, bertrand
>>
>> who else?
>>
>> karen
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love at cptech.org /  
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton


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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Tue Feb 14 12:02:32 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:02:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <43F20D28.4010405@wz-berlin.de>

have to run and cannot say much more than I did, so just this: the 
notion of a core assumes that there will be something beyond that core. 
Do we want the secretariat to grow beyond a core and if so, why?

I find the idea of a rotating secretariat dangerous because that makes 
it vulnerable to the institutional competition between various UN 
organizations.

jeanette

karen banks wrote:
> hi jeanette
> 
> could you say a little more on this? as we had entertained the idea of 
> at least an element of the secretariat function rotating - i'm not even 
> sure what that could mean,  certainly, that there be a permanent core of 
> the secretariat that remains firmly fixed..
> 
> karen
> 
>> Some months ago I would have supported the concept of a distributed
>> secretariat. I remember Avri and I discussing the idea to have a
>> rotating secretariat moving from one international org to another. Today
>> I'd say this is a recipe for desaster. We have to keep in mind that
>> these international organizations are competing for tasks and are
>> disagreeing in terms of regulatory paradigms.
>>
>> What I find much more important today is that the secretariat takes a
>> neutral stance on such matters and tries to remain light-weight. Ideas
>> like distributed secretariat should be considered in the future once the
>> forum is a well established, widely acknowledged institution.
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From fausett at lextext.com  Tue Feb 14 11:59:47 2006
From: fausett at lextext.com (Bret Fausett)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:59:47 -0800
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>

Isn't the goal that the location of the Secretariat be immaterial? I 
would hope to design the IGF Secretariat in such a way that the persons 
in close proximity to the home city or country have no advantage over 
those half a world away. It ought to be as easy to participate from 
Singapore or Nairobi as it is from Geneva or New York (or Marina del 
Rey). If done right, focus on the functions of the secretariat and the 
modes of participation will make the physical location of the 
Secretariat immaterial.

              Bret

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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb 14 10:58:11 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:58:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] Who is attending IGF consultations?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214154558.0335bd68@gn.apc.org>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>
	<43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214154558.0335bd68@gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>

hi

i can guess from a few posts who is actually attending the 
consultations, but would be good to get a list.. also, there are a 
few people who are not on the governance list who i'd like to link up 
with - rikke frankjoergensen in particular who will be holding the 
human rights and privacy/security caucus/wg flags!..

so far, i can work out:

jeanette, adam, izumi, carlos, wolfgang, bill, veni, karen, bertrand

who else?

karen


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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Tue Feb 14 11:38:06 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:38:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <s3f1bec0.065@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3f1bec0.065@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <43F2076E.1070707@wz-berlin.de>



Milton Mueller wrote:
> Veni Markovski wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps you can bring our views on the hot topics:
>> 
>> - Secretariat Location (Geneva?) - IGF meetings (1 per year?) -
>> Steering Group (multistakeholder, of course)
> 
> 
> If these are the "hot" topics I can only wonder what the cold ones
> are. Has there been no discussion of the equal status of
> participants, of the procedures by which working groups will be
> formed, or whether there will indeed be a working group structure?
> Was there any discussion of agenda topics?

Equal status we have in former papers that I will quote.

We have nothing re working groups I believe.
WRT agenda, my suggestion would be that we demand "thematic autonomy" 
for the forum so that it can deal with cross-cutting issues.
Does that sound ok?

jeanette
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann:
> 
>> Does anybody disagree with *Geneva as location for the secretariat?
>> 
> 
> 
> Agree with Lee M. that this is an insider fight with little
> consequence to CS; other than opposing alternatives that would make
> it difficult or hostile to us we should not get involved.
> 
> 
>> * meetings once a year?
>> 
>> Do people like the idea suggested in Malta to call the steering
>> group/ bureau rather a program committee?
> 
> 
> The difference is....nominal. Of course program committee is better
> in case someone gets drunken with the "power" of "steering" but this
> is not a very important issue either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue Feb 14 10:04:11 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:04:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>


Hi,

While we didn't prepare a submission, it would make sense for those who will be attending the consultation to talk prior about what we want to support or oppose, no?  There could be some quite bad ideas thrown on the table, ideally we'd have some idea in advance about possible shared responses.  Since people know it and it's easy, shall we meet at Les Brasseurs at 7:30pm?  www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm   If people can let me know privately whether they can make it and the body count is sufficient, I can try to reserve the private room.

BTW there's a very reasonably priced and good Chinese place nearby we could head to after a drink, if anyone's as unenthused about more flammenkueches as I am...

Bill

*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information

  Revolution and Global Governance

  Graduate Institute for International Studies

  Geneva, Switzerland 
President, Computer Professionals for 
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake 
*******************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060214/20068ec5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb 14 11:03:20 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:03:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] Who is attending IGF consultations?
In-Reply-To: <43F1FF5A.1050700@wz-berlin.de>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>
	<43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214154558.0335bd68@gn.apc.org>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>
	<43F1FF5A.1050700@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214160249.01eddec0@gn.apc.org>

hi

thanks jeanette, and how did i forget avri?  we are sharing a room :)

jeanette, adam, izumi, carlos, wolfgang, bill, veni, karen, bertrand, 
avri, milton

karen

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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Tue Feb 14 11:03:38 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:03:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] Who is attending IGF consultations?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>
	<43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214154558.0335bd68@gn.apc.org>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <43F1FF5A.1050700@wz-berlin.de>



karen banks wrote:
> hi
> 
> i can guess from a few posts who is actually attending the 
> consultations, but would be good to get a list.. also, there are a few 
> people who are not on the governance list who i'd like to link up with - 
> rikke frankjoergensen in particular who will be holding the human rights 
> and privacy/security caucus/wg flags!..
> 
> so far, i can work out:
> 
> jeanette, adam, izumi, carlos, wolfgang, bill, veni, karen, bertrand

Avri, who seems to be offline.
jeanette
> 
> who else?
> 
> karen
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Feb 14 11:32:37 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:32:37 -0500
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
Message-ID: <s3f1bfde.074@gwia201.syr.edu>

Bill, I like your new title, it's about time you got a bit more militant. 

>>> "William Drake" <drake at hei.unige.ch> 2/14/2006 10:04 AM >>>
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch 
  Revolution and Global Governance



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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Feb 14 10:09:35 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:39:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214094136.0427f830@veni.com>
Message-ID: <200602141506.k1EF6PWC016069@trout.cpsr.org>


I agree with Bill that

>> that we should be supportive of a UN-coordinated process 
>building out from prior experience.>>

Parminder 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Veni Markovski
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:15 PM
To: Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] location

At 03:33 PM 14.2.2006 '?.'  +0100, William Drake wrote:

>right now.   With similar considerations in mind, it would not make sense
to
>put it in the other spots being loosely mentioned, e.g. Athens, Budapest,
>Addis, Nairobi, etc.   In comparison, the arguments against Geneva are not
>obvious.

The only good argument I can think of in favour of Geneva is, that 
the previous Secretariat - of the WGIG - was working fine there. 
Otherwise, travel to Geneva is also with visas. The argument against 
would be that in the case of other places, the expenses might be 
covered by the host country?

>If resources allow, there should also be geographically dispersed
>meetings, either the annuals or parallel regionals.

And this is not relevant for the work of the Secretariat. For the IGF 
or the Steering Group - yes, but the Secretariat does not need to 
meet in different places.

>More generally, given the complex way the politics are shaping up, I would
>suggest that we should be supportive of a UN-coordinated process building
>out from prior experience.  CS would lose in any other configuration.

I am not so sure that CS will lose, but otherwise I agree - the UN 
has gain some momentum for the CS. We have to use it.

veni 

_______________________________________________
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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue Feb 14 10:10:11 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:10:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214094136.0427f830@veni.com>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOKEAFGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi Veni,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Veni Markovski

> The only good argument I can think of in favour of Geneva is, that
> the previous Secretariat - of the WGIG - was working fine there.

Also the current interim secretariat.

> Otherwise, travel to Geneva is also with visas. The argument against

Not like the US; people don't get turned down or have the pleasure of
interrogations and cavity searches.

> would be that in the case of other places, the expenses might be
> covered by the host country?

This is neither likely nor desirable.

> >If resources allow, there should also be geographically dispersed
> >meetings, either the annuals or parallel regionals.
>
> And this is not relevant for the work of the Secretariat. For the IGF
> or the Steering Group - yes, but the Secretariat does not need to
> meet in different places.

Of course

> >More generally, given the complex way the politics are shaping
> up, I would
> >suggest that we should be supportive of a UN-coordinated process building
> >out from prior experience.  CS would lose in any other configuration.
>
> I am not so sure that CS will lose, but otherwise I agree - the UN
> has gain some momentum for the CS. We have to use it.

The two halves of your sentence don't align, but I agree with your
conclusion, especially given the alternatives being bandied about.

Best,

Bill


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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Tue Feb 14 10:17:18 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:17:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>



William Drake wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
>  
> While we didn't prepare a submission, it would make sense for those who 
> will be attending the consultation to talk prior about what we want to 
> support or oppose, no?

Adam has copied and pasted a list of issues regarding the forum, which 
the caucus has said in the past year. I am trying at the moment to 
condense these elements into a small number of principles. Will post 
them to the list when I am done.

Don't expect nything surprising or revolutionary. I am aware of the 
narrow limits of consensus on this list...

   There could be some quite bad ideas thrown on
> the table, ideally we'd have some idea in advance about possible shared 
> responses.  Since people know it and it's easy, sh all we meet at Les 
> Brasseurs at 7:30pm? 

Good idea, yes, I will come. Thank you, Bill.
jeanette

  www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm
> <http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm>   If people can let 
> me know privately whether they can make it and the body count is 
> sufficient, I can try to reserve the private room.
>  
> BTW there's a very reasonably priced and good Chinese place nearby we 
> could head to after a drink, if anyone's as unenthused about 
> more flammenkueches as I am...
>  
> Bill
>  
> *******************************************************
> William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch <mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch>
> 
> Director, Project on the Information
> 
>   Revolution and Global Governance
> 
>   Graduate Institute for International Studies
> 
>   Geneva, Switzerland
> President, Computer Professionals for
>    Social Responsibility
> http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake <http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake>
> *******************************************************
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 12:30:13 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:30:13 +0300
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bret,

On 2/14/06, Bret Fausett <fausett at lextext.com> wrote:
> Isn't the goal that the location of the Secretariat be immaterial?


Well yes, BUT since the UN/ITU are running the pre-IGF organising it
looks like it's shaping up to be a largely UN game.

On principle, I have, on this list, mentioned NBO as a UN city that
could easily host the Secretariat.

A few weeks later, this idea was brought up on the kip-list (by a WGIG
member) and posted to AfrISPA-discuss (where African ISP folk discuss
stuff).  Here is an excerpt:

"To the detriment of developing countries however, Greece is also
proposing, at  the Geneva Consultations, to host the IGF secretariat
for the next 5 years.  There is no logical reason for Greece to host
this secretariat. Firstly, the  whole WSIS process was supposed to
benefit the developing world by tackling the  problem of the digital
world. Greece is not a developing country. Secondly, the  WSIS process
was a UN process. Greece does not host any UN Agency,   i.e. has no UN
city such as Geneva, Vienna, New York or Nairobi. Thirdly, it is
common knowledge that for persons from  developing countries to obtain
visas to go for meetings in countries in the West  such as Greece is a
humiliating and difficult, sometimes impossible exercise.  For the IGF
to be effective and serve its goals it should locate its secretariat 
in the developing world, and Nairobi,  being a UN city, would be a
natural choice. As with the DSF which was eventually  housed in
Geneva, the developed world "offers" a few facilities such as office 
space but in reality the benefits to the host country e.g. from
visitors coming  for meetings quickly outstrip the value of what was
offered."

The list of folk attending the Geneva Consultations should be a
reality check for us in re: Northern vs Southern participation.  I
count two people from Asia, one from South America, zero from Africa,
5 from EU, and 5 from North America.

I understand that Secretariat location is not an over-arching issue,
but it sure would be nice for CS to stand on principle this time.  For
the long term I am keen to see a distributed Secretariat, and "program
committee".  For the short term, let's put forward something tangible
regarding participation of developing country participants and
capacity building!!

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

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


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Tue Feb 14 10:36:59 2006
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:36:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] location
Message-ID: <s3f1b2ed.093@gwia201.syr.edu>

Hi,

On the location of the IGF secretariat, this is the kind of thing that will be settled by governments with practically no input from CS, I bet. So while we may all have opinions I doubt anyone's listening to us.  Who has clout on this classic insider fight. 

We can have more input into ensuring that remote participation is automatically possible in as many IGF-related meetings as possible.  Not the same as f2f, but from a CS perspective I think a much more important fight to get into.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> 2/14/2006 9:45 AM >>>
At 03:33 PM 14.2.2006 '?.'  +0100, William Drake wrote:

>right now.   With similar considerations in mind, it would not make sense to
>put it in the other spots being loosely mentioned, e.g. Athens, Budapest,
>Addis, Nairobi, etc.   In comparison, the arguments against Geneva are not
>obvious.

The only good argument I can think of in favour of Geneva is, that 
the previous Secretariat - of the WGIG - was working fine there. 
Otherwise, travel to Geneva is also with visas. The argument against 
would be that in the case of other places, the expenses might be 
covered by the host country?

>If resources allow, there should also be geographically dispersed
>meetings, either the annuals or parallel regionals.

And this is not relevant for the work of the Secretariat. For the IGF 
or the Steering Group - yes, but the Secretariat does not need to 
meet in different places.

>More generally, given the complex way the politics are shaping up, I would
>suggest that we should be supportive of a UN-coordinated process building
>out from prior experience.  CS would lose in any other configuration.

I am not so sure that CS will lose, but otherwise I agree - the UN 
has gain some momentum for the CS. We have to use it.

veni 

_______________________________________________
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


From veni at veni.com  Tue Feb 14 10:23:54 2006
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:23:54 -0500
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>

Perhaps you can bring our views on the hot topics:

- Secretariat Location (Geneva?)
- IGF meetings (1 per year?)
- Steering Group (multistakeholder, of course)

best,
veni

At 04:17 PM 14.2.2006 '?.'  +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:


>William Drake wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While we didn't prepare a submission, it would make sense for those who
> > will be attending the consultation to talk prior about what we want to
> > support or oppose, no?

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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb 14 10:25:51 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:25:51 +0000
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214152358.033769d8@gn.apc.org>

hi jeannette

>Adam has copied and pasted a list of issues regarding the forum, which
>the caucus has said in the past year. I am trying at the moment to
>condense these elements into a small number of principles. Will post
>them to the list when I am done.

please include bill's comments from the malta meeting - which are 
very similar, but the include the all important isue of WSIS 
principles and IGOs, if we don't keep pushing that, it won't even get 
a look in - i've resposted bill's piece below and yes, will make the 
7.30 meeting

karen

"Mandate for a Mine Field? The Internet Governance Forum and Existing
Mechanisms"

The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other things,
the Forum is to:
.       Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different 
cross-cutting
international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that
do not fall within the scope of any existing body;
.       Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other
institutions on matters under their purview;
.       Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this
regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and
technical communities;
.       Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in 
existing and/or
future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
countries;
.       Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
.       Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
.       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of 
WSIS principles
in Internet Governance processes.  [emphasis added]

To fulfill these essential roles, the IG will, at a minimum, need to:  a)
receive clear and consistent political support for translating its broadly
framed mandate into specific operational initiatives; b) be endowed with
sufficient institutional capacity, including in-house analytical
capabilities and/or robust, closely linked external or subsidiary networks
of expertise; and c) develop cooperative, transparent relationships with
existing organizations and networks, both intergovernmental and private
sector, that are not marred by defensive, turf-based reactions.  Absent
these conditions, the IGF will not realize its potential, and indeed could
be reduced to a "talking shop" of limited value for promoting the global
public interest.  Nevertheless, there are grounds for concern that these
conditions may not be met.  Accordingly, this presentation will briefly
highlight some of the challenges raised by the mandate and the obstacles
that will have to be overcome.


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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Tue Feb 14 10:38:22 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:38:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>
Message-ID: <43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>



Veni Markovski wrote:
> Perhaps you can bring our views on the hot topics:
> 
> - Secretariat Location (Geneva?)
> - IGF meetings (1 per year?)
> - Steering Group (multistakeholder, of course)

Does anybody disagree with

*Geneva as location for the secretariat?
* meetings once a year?


Do people like the idea suggested in Malta to call the steering group/ 
bureau rather a program committee?

jeanette
> 
> best,
> veni
> 
> At 04:17 PM 14.2.2006 '?.'  +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>William Drake wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>While we didn't prepare a submission, it would make sense for those who
>>>will be attending the consultation to talk prior about what we want to
>>>support or oppose, no?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Feb 14 12:40:06 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:40:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>
	<f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214173742.021aa4a0@gn.apc.org>

hi mctim

I don't think there's much weight to the greek proposal of hosting 
the secretariat..

>The list of folk attending the Geneva Consultations should be a
>reality check for us in re: Northern vs Southern participation.  I
>count two people from Asia, one from South America, zero from Africa,
>5 from EU, and 5 from North America.
>
>I understand that Secretariat location is not an over-arching issue,
>but it sure would be nice for CS to stand on principle this time.  For
>the long term I am keen to see a distributed Secretariat, and "program
>committee".  For the short term, let's put forward something tangible
>regarding participation of developing country participants and
>capacity building!!

attached for everyone's interest and i hope support, is a proposal on 
capacity building and the IGF, authored by david souter, adam peake 
and myself coming out of the DIPLO meeting last week

we have submitted this so the IGF secretariat

karen 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: igfcb-proposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57261 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060214/117f6cde/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From james.love at cptech.org  Tue Feb 14 12:43:46 2006
From: james.love at cptech.org (James Love)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:43:46 -0500
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>
	<f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7F6F2F6F-973F-4938-AE36-5CC05F3ED76E@cptech.org>

On Feb 14, 2006, at 12:30 PM, McTim wrote:
> The list of folk attending the Geneva Consultations should be a
> reality check for us in re: Northern vs Southern participation.  I
> count two people from Asia, one from South America, zero from Africa,
> 5 from EU, and 5 from North America.
>

   The CPTech person is from Sri Lanka.

---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love at cptech.org /  
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton


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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue Feb 14 12:47:04 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:47:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] Wednesday, Thursday
In-Reply-To: <53C6A6A8-3401-49CC-ABD2-3114269B0285@cptech.org>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOKEANGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

Wednesday night:  Thus far we've heard from Jeanette, Karen and Carlos. If
the numbers increase a lot by tomorrow afternoon I will try to reserve the
side room at Les B, if not we can meet in the bar and then wing it.

Thursday: I'm not aware that we have made any plans for the caucus to be
able to meet during the consultation.  Lunchtime during the first day would
seem the best option, no?  It's probably too late but if people want we can
ask CONGO to see if a room can be procured.  Otherwise we can just meet in
the 2nd floor lounge.

BD


*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
*******************************************************


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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 12:56:30 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:56:30 +0300
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <7F6F2F6F-973F-4938-AE36-5CC05F3ED76E@cptech.org>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>
	<f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7F6F2F6F-973F-4938-AE36-5CC05F3ED76E@cptech.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0602140956l377d49c5na251d28684e11e42@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, James Love <james.love at cptech.org> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2006, at 12:30 PM, McTim wrote:
> > The list of folk attending the Geneva Consultations should be a
> > reality check for us in re: Northern vs Southern participation.  I
> > count two people from Asia, one from South America, zero from Africa,
> > 5 from EU, and 5 from North America.
> >
>
>    The CPTech person is from Sri Lanka.

but lives in Geneva.  Veni is from Europe, but lives in NYC.  Avri I
counted as a US person, even though she is in EU land part-time.  Adam
is not Japanese but lives there.

In short, I counted people by the places I assumed they would be
traveling from, not by ethnicity.

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Feb 14 12:57:39 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:57:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] Wednesday, Thursday
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I will be there.
 
With Thursday lunch, avoid to leave the palais. we can arrange a lunch table in the cafeterria or look for a free room next to the meeting place.
 
wolfgang
 
 

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Di 14.02.2006 18:47
An: Governance
Betreff: [governance] Wednesday, Thursday



Hi,

Wednesday night:  Thus far we've heard from Jeanette, Karen and Carlos. If
the numbers increase a lot by tomorrow afternoon I will try to reserve the
side room at Les B, if not we can meet in the bar and then wing it.

Thursday: I'm not aware that we have made any plans for the caucus to be
able to meet during the consultation.  Lunchtime during the first day would
seem the best option, no?  It's probably too late but if people want we can
ask CONGO to see if a room can be procured.  Otherwise we can just meet in
the 2nd floor lounge.

BD


*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
*******************************************************


_______________________________________________
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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 13:00:14 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:00:14 +0300
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214173742.021aa4a0@gn.apc.org>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>
	<f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214173742.021aa4a0@gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0602141000n53920cebwc8b7b4b1076119a0@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org> wrote:
> hi mctim
>
> I don't think there's much weight to the greek proposal of hosting
> the secretariat..

neither do I, I am more concerned about another Geneva body growing
fat and moribund.

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

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


From james.love at cptech.org  Tue Feb 14 13:08:06 2006
From: james.love at cptech.org (James Love)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:08:06 -0500
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0602141000n53920cebwc8b7b4b1076119a0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>
	<f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214173742.021aa4a0@gn.apc.org>
	<f65fb55e0602141000n53920cebwc8b7b4b1076119a0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <08D45531-BD9F-4A13-AF70-887B13E43CE9@cptech.org>

Geneva today is not a horrible location... as there is a growing  
civil society presence, and many of the Geneva delegates have  
fruitful communications with them.   In some ways it is better than  
something like the Hague Conference, which is very isolated, or  
places that are super expensive to fly to.   Jamie

On Feb 14, 2006, at 1:00 PM, McTim wrote:

> On 2/14/06, karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org> wrote:
>> hi mctim
>>
>> I don't think there's much weight to the greek proposal of hosting
>> the secretariat..
>
> neither do I, I am more concerned about another Geneva body growing
> fat and moribund.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love at cptech.org /  
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton


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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 13:20:34 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:20:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <08D45531-BD9F-4A13-AF70-887B13E43CE9@cptech.org>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>
	<f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214173742.021aa4a0@gn.apc.org>
	<f65fb55e0602141000n53920cebwc8b7b4b1076119a0@mail.gmail.com>
	<08D45531-BD9F-4A13-AF70-887B13E43CE9@cptech.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0602141020vaa04c1aj433d3177ecafd44f@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, James Love <james.love at cptech.org> wrote:
>
> Geneva today is not a horrible location...


but brutally expensive for folk from LDCs.

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060214/1b41879b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From veni at veni.com  Tue Feb 14 13:24:33 2006
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:24:33 -0500
Subject: [governance] Who is attending IGF consultations?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>
	<43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214154558.0335bd68@gn.apc.org>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214132408.062861f0@veni.com>

At 03:58 PM 14.2.2006 '?.'  +0000, karen banks wrote:
>hi
>
>i can guess from a few posts who is actually attending the 
>consultations, but would be good to get a list.. also, there are a 
>few people who are not on the governance list who i'd like to link 
>up with - rikke frankjoergensen in particular who will be holding 
>the human rights and privacy/security caucus/wg flags!..
>
>so far, i can work out:
>
>jeanette, adam, izumi, carlos, wolfgang, bill, veni, karen, bertrand

Actually I am not going, but there will be another representative of 
Bulgaria there.

veni 

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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue Feb 14 13:40:29 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:40:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0602141000n53920cebwc8b7b4b1076119a0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEBAGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi McTim,

> neither do I, I am more concerned about another Geneva body growing
> fat and moribund.

I'm having trouble following.  Which are the organizations that are fat and
moribund because they are in Geneva?  Was the WGIG secretariat fat and
moribund?  Conversely, if the IGF secretariat was in Nairobi, does this mean
by definition that it would be lean and mean?

The secretariat will be small wherever it's located.  It will probably be
funded by Northern European governments.  It will have to interact
extensively with UN agencies involved in Internet and ICT issues.  It will
have to be accessible to mission staff with responsibility for those issues,
who interact with the agencies responsible for those issues.  It will have
to have good and reasonably priced travel connections;  Nairobi would be
tough, especially for people from the developing world (including, I
suspect, intra-regionally).  Plus good infrastructure more generally to
sustain the whole process.  And so on.

Anyway, as Lee says, this won't be decided by us.  In fact, it's probably
one of the issues on which we'd have the least influence.

Best,

Bill



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


From veni at veni.com  Tue Feb 14 14:12:36 2006
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:12:36 -0500
Subject: [governance] Caucus Meeting Wednesday Night?
In-Reply-To: <s3f1bfde.074@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3f1bfde.074@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214141136.06434a18@veni.com>

At 11:32 AM 14.2.2006 '?.'  -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Bill, I like your new title, it's about time you got a bit more militant.

Hmmm..

How about

Lt. General of the IP force?

veni

p.s. Who is this General Fault and why is he reading my drive? 

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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Feb 14 20:16:27 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:16:27 -0500
Subject: [governance] Geneva IGF consultations - Comments
Message-ID: <32FBB94E7C1F0A47588FDE5B@Vigor10>



--On February 14, 2006 10:38:22 PM +0100 Jeanette Hofmann 
<jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:

>
> Does anybody disagree with
>
> *Geneva as location for the secretariat?
no

> * meetings once a year?

no.

>
> Do people like the idea suggested in Malta to call the steering group/
> bureau rather a program committee?

I have issues with  using "bureau", as it has a certain connotation in 
the UN system. A less formal name such as  -  program committee 
steering group would likely be more flexible and less subject to capture 
by governments.

if i'm not mistaken the Canadian position mentions "program committee" 
and not "bureau".

Additional issues that CS should try to develop positions on:

1. Financing

Specifically what funds (resources, assistance, etc) would be needed for 
CS participation both at the physical meetings and the program 
committee/steering group.


2. Focus and scope of the IGF

There seemed to be slight differences of opinion at the Malta meeting on 
how narrow (or not) the themes/issues should be at the IGF. I'm 
referring to the "development" area.

Would be good that the positions be known.


3. Thematic issues to be discussed at the first IGF meeting.

At the Malta meeting it was suggested that "non-problematic" be raised 
first so as to have a productive meeting.

Spam, multi-lingualism & cybersecurity seem to be mentioned most 
frequently. What does the caucus & CS in general think about these three?

Can we come-up with 3-5 priority topics as well ? Would it be a good idea


4. Accreditation

The process and/or mechanism needed to be able to participate at the 
IGF. Is there a common CS/Caucus position on this . It is an issue that 
will come up, one which consensus would be good to put forward.

that's all for now


regards

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


From apeake at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 14:17:27 2006
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:17:27 +0900
Subject: [governance] Wednesday, Thursday
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <f31ae3560602141117m323fe8e5kcf2d7ed807508788@mail.gmail.com>

I think we should be careful about stating anything we haven't
previously agreed.  A synthesis of earlier statements.  e.g. think we
need to think though how we make any statement about frequency of the
physical meeting, as it may link to regional and national meetings.

Secretariat in Geneva - for now.

Just not enough time and too many people on the list (still, I hope!)
to start adding new ideas now.

Adam

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Tue Feb 14 14:18:23 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:18:23 -0200
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEBAGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEBAGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <43F22CFF.6080200@rits.org.br>



William Drake wrote:

>Hi McTim,
>[...] Anyway, as Lee says, this won't be decided by us.  In fact, it's probably
>one of the issues on which we'd have the least influence.
>  
>
I agree this won't be decided by us (unless a "fat", not "moribund"
organization decides to provide big funding to move it to, say, Fernando
de Noronha island with all travel costs covered), and we have plenty of
relevant questions to discuss, so let us leave this as it is.

--c.a.

>  
>

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
********************************************
* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux   *
* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
* com software livre e de código aberto,   *
* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
* Coletivo Digital.                        *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
********************************************


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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Feb 14 20:24:00 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:24:00 -0500
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20C83.3090402@lextext.com>
	<f65fb55e0602140930s6fae6cfeu8495f2ed3d760c8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BBA0DF829E53E9664481BA25@Vigor10>



--On February 15, 2006 2:30:13 AM +0300 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> "To the detriment of developing countries however, Greece is also
> proposing, at  the Geneva Consultations, to host the IGF secretariat
> for the next 5 years.

here are the countries i've heard (from one source or another) that 
lobbying to host the IGF secretariat.

Switzerland
Greece
Hungary - confirmed by many, however few details on what they are 
proposing.

- Informal comments suggest that Ireland, Brazil & New York are also 
putting in bids.

regards

Robert

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 14:42:18 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:42:18 +0300
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEBAGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <f65fb55e0602141000n53920cebwc8b7b4b1076119a0@mail.gmail.com>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEBAGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0602141142u2c5e84ebk22162a11cdcbe1c2@mail.gmail.com>

Hullo Mon General,

On 2/14/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
> Hi McTim,
>
> > neither do I, I am more concerned about another Geneva body growing
> > fat and moribund.
>
> I'm having trouble following.  Which are the organizations that are fat and
> moribund because they are in Geneva?

I didn't imply cause and effect.  You are better placed to answer your
own (rhetorical) query than I, but the ITU, ILO, WIPO, IMF, UNIDO,
UNITAR etc, come to mind.


> Conversely, if the IGF secretariat was in Nairobi, does this mean
> by definition that it would be lean and mean?
>

Nope, wasn't implied.  However there is a large community of ppl in
NBo that are deeply concerned with IG issues, have the capacity to
deal with them and would be cheaper to hire than Europeans.  So in
that sense, yes.

> The secretariat will be small wherever it's located.
> It will probably be funded by Northern European governments.
> It will have to interact
> extensively with UN agencies involved in Internet and ICT issues.
>It will have to be accessible to mission staff with responsibility
for those issues,
> who interact with the agencies responsible for those issues.  It will have
> to have good and reasonably priced travel connections;

None of the above are arguments for GVA or against NBO.

> Nairobi would be
> tough, especially for people from the developing world (including, I
> suspect, intra-regionally).

I suspect a little inconvenience is a trade off that many Africans
would be wiling to face to have the IGFs first home in Africa. At
least, that's how it sounded from the mailing list discussion I
mentioned earlier.

> Plus good infrastructure more generally to
> sustain the whole process.  And so on.

Roads are well paved, electricity works, Loads of ISPs.

>
> Anyway, as Lee says, this won't be decided by us.  In fact, it's probably
> one of the issues on which we'd have the least influence.

Does that mean we shouldn't take a stand on principle? ;-)

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

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


From seiiti at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 15:14:28 2006
From: seiiti at gmail.com (Seiiti Arata)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:14:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] Who is attending IGF consultations?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214132408.062861f0@veni.com>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOOEAEGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<43F1F47E.7070007@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214102220.03e7ac70@veni.com>
	<43F1F96E.1040704@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214154558.0335bd68@gn.apc.org>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214155623.020c8438@gn.apc.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060214132408.062861f0@veni.com>
Message-ID: <874fe2180602141214k5cdf48d1w5ba57c39cad96022@mail.gmail.com>

I will also be there - just arrived in Geneva.

On 2/14/06, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
> At 03:58 PM 14.2.2006 '?.'  +0000, karen banks wrote:
> >hi
> >
> >i can guess from a few posts who is actually attending the
> >consultations, but would be good to get a list.. also, there are a
> >few people who are not on the governance list who i'd like to link
> >up with - rikke frankjoergensen in particular who will be holding
> >the human rights and privacy/security caucus/wg flags!..
> >
> >so far, i can work out:
> >
> >jeanette, adam, izumi, carlos, wolfgang, bill, veni, karen, bertrand
>
> Actually I am not going, but there will be another representative of
> Bulgaria there.
>
> veni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From avri at psg.com  Tue Feb 14 15:28:15 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:28:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <43F20D28.4010405@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20D28.4010405@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <6C62E0CB-8BDC-4929-9CC1-F26684E4549D@psg.com>


On 14 feb 2006, at 18.02, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>
> I find the idea of a rotating secretariat dangerous because that makes
> it vulnerable to the institutional competition between various UN
> organizations.

i don't actually remember discussing a rotating secretariat.  but it  
may have been a terminology difference.  what i was talking about was  
the idea that the logistics of setting up meetings could rotate among  
other organizations.  if one thinks about a secretariat as a group  
that does lots of stuff and also organizes the logistics of meetings,  
this one piece was conceived of as possibly rotating.  at least that  
is what i was thinking about.  this chunk can get large and  
cumbersome, so this was one possible way of keeping the secretariat  
lean and focused on the substance of the forum administration.

a.



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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Tue Feb 14 17:48:49 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:48:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
Message-ID: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>

Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential 
caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.

*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need 
further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.

*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome too.

Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps 
somebody already in Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.

-------------------------------------------------

I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance


•	Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing 
institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending 
participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of 
dialogue, discussion and development in this field.

•	Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in 
Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in 
Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider 
communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific 
barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing 
countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet 
Governance.

•	Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to the 
participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions 
including governments, private sector, civil society and international 
organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied 
to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such 
as the secretariat and a potential program committee.

•	Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance should not 
be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness 
of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote 
participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable 
to attend in person.

•	Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of the forum 
that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is 
expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making 
capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective 
working principle to enable high quality results.

•	Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics as it 
considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are 
cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and 
competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be 
seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that 
promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating 
and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.

•	Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing process 
with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller 
thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should 
constitute just one element in this process.

•	Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for 
the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In 
considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to 
governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure 
should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability 
of entrance visas.

•	Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must take an 
open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership 
and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must 
publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.


II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance


The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet 
Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in 
relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other 
things, the Forum should:

•	Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between 
bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding 
the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any 
existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the 
expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

	Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other 
institutions on matters under their purview;

	Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing 
and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from 
developing countries;

	Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant 
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

•	Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing 
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

•	Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS 
principles in Internet Governance processes.


jeanette
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CS-intervention-Geneva-consultation-forum-j-j.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 38912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060214/28c7d262/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From aizu at anr.org  Tue Feb 14 17:35:07 2006
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:35:07 +0900
Subject: [governance] Wednesday, Thursday
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOKEANGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <53C6A6A8-3401-49CC-ABD2-3114269B0285@cptech.org>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOKEANGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060215073155.084fc9f0@anr.org>

Hi,

Though I will come to Geneva, I can only stay one night,
that's tomorrow, Wednesday, but arriving Geneva airport
at 21:20 from Brussels, quite late.
[There is some chance that I may fly earlier.]

  I will call Bill or ohters' mobile from the hotel and if you
guys are still there, I will show up.

I will stay at Hotel Windsor near the Cornavin station.

See you all,

izumi


At 18:47 06/02/14 +0100, William Drake wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Wednesday night:  Thus far we've heard from Jeanette, Karen and Carlos. If
>the numbers increase a lot by tomorrow afternoon I will try to reserve the
>side room at Les B, if not we can meet in the bar and then wing it.
>
>Thursday: I'm not aware that we have made any plans for the caucus to be
>able to meet during the consultation.  Lunchtime during the first day would
>seem the best option, no?  It's probably too late but if people want we can
>ask CONGO to see if a room can be procured.  Otherwise we can just meet in
>the 2nd floor lounge.
>
>BD
>
>
>*******************************************************
>William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
>Director, Project on the Information
>   Revolution and Global Governance
>   Graduate Institute for International Studies
>   Geneva, Switzerland
>President, Computer Professionals for
>    Social Responsibility
>http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
>*******************************************************
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue Feb 14 17:58:51 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:58:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0602141142u2c5e84ebk22162a11cdcbe1c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOCEBGGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:42 PM

> Does that mean we shouldn't take a stand on principle? ;-)

I agree we should take a stand on principle, which would be to support the
organization and people who welcomed us in, asked what we thought, took our
inputs, and helped facilitate a fair amount of their gist getting into
international agreements.  If the caucus is unable to agree on even this,
individual members can and will do so in their own capacities.

Best,

BD



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


From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca  Tue Feb 14 18:17:45 2006
From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:17:45 -0500
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <00a401c631bc$dcd46ec0$0201a8c0@jgsnotebook>

Hi Everyone,

Obviously, for logistical reasons, it is much better to have someone in Geneva compiling the comments and editing the master version of this draft document. I did however, tell Jeanette that I would do it as a fallback if no one there takes on the responsibility.

Thus, could whoever takes on (is forced) into that responsibility make it clear to the list (and to me) as to where they should send their comments. 

If no one from Geneva does take on this responsibility, I would appreciate it someone could contact me on or off-list to give me an indication of what time the final version of this document is needed by.

But, overall it is much better given the time difference and lack of context if someone presently in Geneva does this.

Best wishes,

Jeremy
 


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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: February 14, 2006 5:49 PM
To: Governance Caucus
Subject: [not_spam] [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential 
caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.

*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need 
further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.

*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome too.

Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps 
somebody already in Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.

-------------------------------------------------

I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance


•	Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing 
institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending 
participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of 
dialogue, discussion and development in this field.

•	Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in 
Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in 
Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider 
communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific 
barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing 
countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet 
Governance.

•	Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to the 
participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions 
including governments, private sector, civil society and international 
organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied 
to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such 
as the secretariat and a potential program committee.

•	Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance should not 
be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness 
of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote 
participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable 
to attend in person.

•	Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of the forum 
that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is 
expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making 
capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective 
working principle to enable high quality results.

•	Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics as it 
considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are 
cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and 
competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be 
seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that 
promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating 
and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.

•	Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing process 
with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller 
thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should 
constitute just one element in this process.

•	Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for 
the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In 
considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to 
governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure 
should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability 
of entrance visas.

•	Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must take an 
open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership 
and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must 
publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.


II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance


The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet 
Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in 
relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other 
things, the Forum should:

•	Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between 
bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding 
the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any 
existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the 
expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

	Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other 
institutions on matters under their purview;

	Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing 
and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from 
developing countries;

	Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant 
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

•	Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing 
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

•	Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS 
principles in Internet Governance processes.


jeanette


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


From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Tue Feb 14 23:24:28 2006
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:24:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEBAGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <f65fb55e0602141000n53920cebwc8b7b4b1076119a0@mail.gmail.com>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEBAGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <131293a20602142024t271290c7u1d6006145c84c5dc@mail.gmail.com>

I agree - travelling to Nariobi for me includes a stay over in London
(expensive) and took me 2 full days and nights from Trinidad. Geneva is a
straight hop - POS-LON-GVA  - and a lot cheaper
But then, remind me  - why would we have to travel to the secretariat?
Jacqueline

On 2/14/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi McTim,
>
> > neither do I, I am more concerned about another Geneva body growing
> > fat and moribund.
>
> I'm having trouble following.  Which are the organizations that are fat
> and
> moribund because they are in Geneva?  Was the WGIG secretariat fat and
> moribund?  Conversely, if the IGF secretariat was in Nairobi, does this
> mean
> by definition that it would be lean and mean?
>
> The secretariat will be small wherever it's located.  It will probably be
> funded by Northern European governments.  It will have to interact
> extensively with UN agencies involved in Internet and ICT issues.  It will
> have to be accessible to mission staff with responsibility for those
> issues,
> who interact with the agencies responsible for those issues.  It will have
> to have good and reasonably priced travel connections;  Nairobi would be
> tough, especially for people from the developing world (including, I
> suspect, intra-regionally).  Plus good infrastructure more generally to
> sustain the whole process.  And so on.
>
> Anyway, as Lee says, this won't be decided by us.  In fact, it's probably
> one of the issues on which we'd have the least influence.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>



--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/072b31d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Tue Feb 14 23:26:34 2006
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:26:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <6C62E0CB-8BDC-4929-9CC1-F26684E4549D@psg.com>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20D28.4010405@wz-berlin.de>
	<6C62E0CB-8BDC-4929-9CC1-F26684E4549D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <131293a20602142026u7f6a3feemd8a4da3bd27f133a@mail.gmail.com>

This could be outsourced to get over  the institutional competition aspect -
unless competition is in placing bids to manage the logistics of the
meeting?
JAM

On 2/14/06, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 feb 2006, at 18.02, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
> >
> > I find the idea of a rotating secretariat dangerous because that makes
> > it vulnerable to the institutional competition between various UN
> > organizations.
>
> i don't actually remember discussing a rotating secretariat.  but it
> may have been a terminology difference.  what i was talking about was
> the idea that the logistics of setting up meetings could rotate among
> other organizations.  if one thinks about a secretariat as a group
> that does lots of stuff and also organizes the logistics of meetings,
> this one piece was conceived of as possibly rotating.  at least that
> is what i was thinking about.  this chunk can get large and
> cumbersome, so this was one possible way of keeping the secretariat
> lean and focused on the substance of the forum administration.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>



--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/54504799/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Feb 15 02:08:41 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:08:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I can agree with the statement. I would probably add to "cross cutting" als trans-disciplinary and inter-institutional.

Another point, as CS we should add one para. on the special interests of individual users and probably also on minority groups. What about one para saying, that the work of the Forum has to be based on the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in mparticular Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy?

Wolfgang

   


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Tue 2/14/2006 11:48 PM
To: Governance Caucus
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
 
Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential 
caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.

*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need 
further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.

*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome too.

Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps 
somebody already in Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.

-------------------------------------------------

I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance


.	Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing 
institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending 
participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of 
dialogue, discussion and development in this field.

.	Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in 
Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in 
Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider 
communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific 
barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing 
countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet 
Governance.

.	Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to the 
participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions 
including governments, private sector, civil society and international 
organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied 
to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such 
as the secretariat and a potential program committee.

.	Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance should not 
be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness 
of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote 
participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable 
to attend in person.

.	Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of the forum 
that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is 
expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making 
capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective 
working principle to enable high quality results.

.	Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics as it 
considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are 
cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and 
competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be 
seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that 
promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating 
and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.

.	Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing process 
with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller 
thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should 
constitute just one element in this process.

.	Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for 
the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In 
considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to 
governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure 
should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability 
of entrance visas.

.	Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must take an 
open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership 
and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must 
publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.


II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance


The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet 
Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in 
relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other 
things, the Forum should:

.	Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between 
bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding 
the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any 
existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the 
expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

?	Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other 
institutions on matters under their purview;

?	Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing 
and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from 
developing countries;

?	Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant 
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

.	Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing 
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

.	Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS 
principles in Internet Governance processes.


jeanette

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


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Wed Feb 15 04:36:41 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:36:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] Design framework for IGF
Message-ID: <a06230916c018a56d938b@[10.59.1.9]>

For those who may be interested, I have posted a piece on a framework 
for design of IGF.

	http://davidallen.org/papers/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf

(If a letter size version is helpful, substitute LTR for A4 in the URL.)

David

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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Wed Feb 15 04:40:35 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:40:35 +0000
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060215093519.01f88228@gn.apc.org>

hi

i've looked over very quickly and can support 
everything here - we would have additional points 
to make, or would emphasize some points more than 
others, but can do so in a separate intervention.

the two points i would add, or, think are missing 
- are the importance of a rights based approach 
to the forum (with specific reference to privacy 
and freedom of expression) and the importance of 
an overriding development orientation to the work 
of the IGF (i don't see any reference to 
developing country priorities in this text, 
excepting that of capacity building and 
participation - which are of course important, 
but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)

anyway, if this is too difficult - i can raise in our intervention..

APC will post it's survey response today, very 
late.. and i'll post a copy here..

In some ways, we are still thinking, so the 
responses are not necessarily final final positions or perspectives ..

karen

At 22:48 14/02/2006, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual 
>very late, a potential caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
>
>*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or 
>which parts need further editing or should be 
>deleted because they are controversial.
>
>*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome too.
>
>Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good 
>if somebody - perhaps somebody already in 
>Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
>
>
>•       Added Value: The goal of the forum is to 
>add value to the existing institutional 
>arrangements relevant to Internet governance by 
>extending participation to a broader community 
>and by improving the quality of dialogue, 
>discussion and development in this field.
>
>•       Capacity-building: The IGF must 
>contribute to building capacity in Internet 
>governance amongst all stakeholders directly 
>engaged in Internet Governance and ICT policy 
>issues as well as within the wider communities 
>affected by them. The IGF must overcome the 
>specific barriers to effective participation, in 
>particular from developing countries, found in 
>the current institutional structures of Internet Governance.
>
>•       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: 
>The forum must be open to the participation of 
>all relevant actors from all sectors and regions 
>including governments, private sector, civil 
>society and international organizations. The 
>multi-stakeholder approach should not only be 
>applied to the forum but to all bodies and 
>processes related to the forum such as the 
>secretariat and a potential program committee.
>
>•       Inclusiveness and remote participation: 
>Physical attendance should not be required for 
>participation. In order to strengthen the 
>inclusiveness of its collaboration, the forum 
>should integrate new forms of remote 
>participation to enable contributions from 
>stakeholders who are unable to attend in person.
>
>•       Equality of participation: It is vital 
>to the legitimacy of the forum that all 
>stakeholders participate on an equal basis. 
>Since the forum is expected to act as a 
>facilitating body without binding decision 
>making capacity, equal footing for all 
>participants is the most effective working 
>principle to enable high quality results.
>
>•       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be 
>free to choose its topics as it considers 
>appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet 
>Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch 
>upon the responsibilities and competences of 
>existing organizations. However, the forum 
>should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF 
>will function as a facilitator that promotes 
>enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies 
>by generating and diffusing "best-practice" and 
>"lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
>
>•       Forum as process: The forum should be 
>designed as an ongoing process with most of its 
>work taking place throughout the year in smaller 
>thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to 
>face meetings should constitute just one element in this process.
>
>•       Accessible location: The highest 
>priority in choosing locations for the forum 
>should be accessibility to all potential 
>participants. In considering perspective 
>locations issues such as: proximity to 
>governmental missions and the local hotel and 
>transit infrastructure should be balanced with 
>concerns about travel costs and the availability of entrance visas.
>
>•       Transparency: For the sake of its 
>legitimacy, the forum must take an open and 
>transparent approach to its structure, 
>procedures, membership and to all of its 
>deliberations and recommendations. The forum 
>must publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
>
>
>II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
>
>
>The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society 
>calls on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to 
>play a multidimensional, catalytic role in 
>relation to existing Internet governance 
>mechanisms.  Among other things, the Forum should:
>
>•       Facilitate the exchange of information 
>and best practices between bodies dealing with 
>different international public policies 
>regarding the Internet and discuss issues that 
>do not fall within the scope of any existing 
>body. In this regard the Forum should make full 
>use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
>
>     Interface: with appropriate 
>inter-governmental organizations and other 
>institutions on matters under their purview;
>
>     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of 
>stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet 
>Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
>
>     Identify emerging issues, bring them to 
>the attention of the relevant bodies and the 
>general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
>
>•       Contribute to capacity-building for 
>Internet Governance in developing countries, 
>drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
>
>•       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, 
>the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.
>
>
>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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Wed Feb 15 04:47:37 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:47:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060215093519.01f88228@gn.apc.org>
References: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060215093519.01f88228@gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <43F2F8B9.6070708@wz-berlin.de>

thanks Wolfgang and Karen.
It would be good if you or anybody else could suggest concrete language 
that can easily be added. Hope to be online later today.
jeanette


karen banks wrote:
> hi
> 
> i've looked over very quickly and can support everything here - we would 
> have additional points to make, or would emphasize some points more than 
> others, but can do so in a separate intervention.
> 
> the two points i would add, or, think are missing - are the importance 
> of a rights based approach to the forum (with specific reference to 
> privacy and freedom of expression) and the importance of an overriding 
> development orientation to the work of the IGF (i don't see any 
> reference to developing country priorities in this text, excepting that 
> of capacity building and participation - which are of course important, 
> but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)
> 
> anyway, if this is too difficult - i can raise in our intervention..
> 
> APC will post it's survey response today, very late.. and i'll post a 
> copy here..
> 
> In some ways, we are still thinking, so the responses are not 
> necessarily final final positions or perspectives ..
> 
> karen
> 
> At 22:48 14/02/2006, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
>> Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential 
>> caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
>>
>> *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need 
>> further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.
>>
>> *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome 
>> too.
>>
>> Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps 
>> somebody already in Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
>>
>>
>> •       Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the 
>> existing institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by 
>> extending participation to a broader community and by improving the 
>> quality of dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
>>
>> •       Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building 
>> capacity in Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly 
>> engaged in Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within 
>> the wider communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the 
>> specific barriers to effective participation, in particular from 
>> developing countries, found in the current institutional structures of 
>> Internet Governance.
>>
>> •       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be 
>> open to the participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and 
>> regions including governments, private sector, civil society and 
>> international organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not 
>> only be applied to the forum but to all bodies and processes related 
>> to the forum such as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
>>
>> •       Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance 
>> should not be required for participation. In order to strengthen the 
>> inclusiveness of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new 
>> forms of remote participation to enable contributions from 
>> stakeholders who are unable to attend in person.
>>
>> •       Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of 
>> the forum that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since 
>> the forum is expected to act as a facilitating body without binding 
>> decision making capacity, equal footing for all participants is the 
>> most effective working principle to enable high quality results.
>>
>> •       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics 
>> as it considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet 
>> Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the 
>> responsibilities and competences of existing organizations. However, 
>> the forum should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF will 
>> function as a facilitator that promotes enhanced cooperation amongst 
>> all involved bodies by generating and diffusing "best-practice" and 
>> "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
>>
>> •       Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing 
>> process with most of its work taking place throughout the year in 
>> smaller thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings 
>> should constitute just one element in this process.
>>
>> •       Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing 
>> locations for the forum should be accessibility to all potential 
>> participants. In considering perspective locations issues such as: 
>> proximity to governmental missions and the local hotel and transit 
>> infrastructure should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and 
>> the availability of entrance visas.
>>
>> •       Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must 
>> take an open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, 
>> membership and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The 
>> forum must publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
>>
>>
>> II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
>>
>>
>> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet 
>> Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in 
>> relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other 
>> things, the Forum should:
>>
>> •       Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices 
>> between bodies dealing with different international public policies 
>> regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the 
>> scope of any existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full 
>> use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical 
>> communities;
>>
>>      Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations 
>> and other institutions on matters under their purview;
>>
>>      Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in 
>> existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly 
>> those from developing countries;
>>
>>      Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the 
>> relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
>> recommendations;
>>
>> •       Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in 
>> developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and 
>> expertise;
>>
>> •       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of 
>> WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.
>>
>>
>> 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


From db at dannybutt.net  Wed Feb 15 05:46:23 2006
From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:46:23 +1300
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <F213219F-84AA-4B5C-BF40-0DA976A5B6B7@dannybutt.net>

Good point Wolfgang. In response to Jeanette's request for language,  
I think it simply needs what you wrote as a sentence:

"Human Rights: The work of the Forum should protect and promote human  
rights principles as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human  
Rights, in particular provisions for privacy and freedom of expression."

Otherwise I can also agree with the statement.

Danny


On 15/02/2006, at 8:08 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

> I can agree with the statement. I would probably add to "cross  
> cutting" als trans-disciplinary and inter-institutional.
>
> Another point, as CS we should add one para. on the special  
> interests of individual users and probably also on minority groups.  
> What about one para saying, that the work of the Forum has to be  
> based on the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of  
> Human Rights, in mparticular Freedom of Expression and Right to  
> Privacy?
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Tue 2/14/2006 11:48 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
>
> Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential
> caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
>
> *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need
> further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.
>
> *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are  
> welcome too.
>
> Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps
> somebody already in Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
>
>
> .	Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by  
> extending
> participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of
> dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
>
> .	Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
> Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
> Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
> communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
> barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
> countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet
> Governance.
>
> .	Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open  
> to the
> participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> including governments, private sector, civil society and international
> organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be  
> applied
> to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such
> as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
>
> .	Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance  
> should not
> be required for participation. In order to strengthen the  
> inclusiveness
> of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote
> participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable
> to attend in person.
>
> .	Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of the  
> forum
> that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the  
> forum is
> expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making
> capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective
> working principle to enable high quality results.
>
> .	Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics as it
> considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are
> cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
> competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should  
> not be
> seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that
> promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by  
> generating
> and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of  
> knowledge.
>
> .	Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing process
> with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should
> constitute just one element in this process.
>
> .	Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for
> the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
> considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
> governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
> should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the  
> availability
> of entrance visas.
>
> .	Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must take an
> open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership
> and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must
> publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
>
>
> II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
>
>
> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
> things, the Forum should:
>
> .	Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
> bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
> the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope  
> of any
> existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
> expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
>
> ?	Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and  
> other
> institutions on matters under their purview;
>
> ?	Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> developing countries;
>
> ?	Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the  
> relevant
> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make  
> recommendations;
>
> .	Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in  
> developing
> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
>
> .	Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> principles in Internet Governance processes.
>
>
> jeanette
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


-- 
Danny Butt
db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200


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


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 06:07:05 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:07:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <954259bd0602150307x6d278ebfs6fa30f6920b7f3c6@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Excellent draft Jeanette, thanks.

I suppose the text could be finalized during the caucus meeting tonight.

A few comments below : *new text* *underlined*, (*deleted text is in italic
between brackets*).


•       Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
countries, found in the current (*institutional* *structures)*
*processes*of Internet
Governance.


Rationale : it keeps closer to the language of the Tunis Agenda (para 72i)
and covers not only institutions but also more diffuse mechanisms.


•       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to
the
participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
including governments, private sector, civil society and international
organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum, *
including* *(such
as)* the secretariat and a potential program committee.

Rationale : this formulation allows to cover future thematic working groups
without having to mention them explicitely at that stage.


•       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose *the issues it
addresses* *(its topics)* as it considers appropriate, *in application of
its lmissions and mandate as defined, inter alia, by para 72 of the Tunis
Agenda.* (*Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are cross-cutting
issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and competences of existing
organizations. However, the forum should not be seen as their competitor.
The IGF will function as a facilitator that
promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.)*

Rationale : This is a critical paragraph to establish the right of the Forum
to define its agenda. Thanks for thinking about inserting it. It could be
titled "Right of initiative" or "Agenda-setting", but I suppose the present
formulation is more appropriate at that stage, in order to ruffle less
feathers.

I suggest to explicitely quote paragraph 72 because it actually defines
three very important elements for the Forum :
- a precise *range of 5 allowed roles* : neutral facilitation (facilitates,
interfaces, etc...), participative deliberation (discuss issues), advisory
role (make recommendations, advise on ways and means, help find solutions),
capacity building (exchange of best practices, monitoring role (identify
emerging issues, assess embodiment of principles)
- a *list of 6 types of issues* the IGF can address : key elements of
Internet governance; cross-cutting international public policies; issues out
of the scope of existing bodies; emerging issues; issues relating to
critical internet ressources; issues arising from the use and misuse of the
Internet
- *4 broad-ranging missions* (even if they are not called like this) :
fostering the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and
development of the Internet; accelerate the availability and affordability
of the Internet in the developing world; strengthen engagement of
stakeholders in existing and/or future IG mechanisms; promote the embodiment
of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.

Mentioning para 72 here is the hook we can leverage later to refine the
missions and roles of the IGF. As a consequence, the rest of the paragraph
should better be suppressed. It helps shorten the text and the present
formulation is a little too apologetic, as if we were voluntarily limiting
the scope of activities ithe IGF can endeavour.


•       Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for
the forum *activities* should be accessibility to all potential
participants. In
considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
of entrance visas.

Rationale : As mentionned in a previous post, we need to avoid equating the
Forum with its secretariat. Location of the secretariat is one issue; where
face to face activities will take place is another one : annual meetings
could take place in different locations and the secretariat itself could
have a distributed structure, including the setting up in due time of
support staff for thematic activities and working roups.
___________

Finally, I would suggest to suppress entirely the part II at that stage. It
basically reiterates para 72 on the mandate without adding anything
particular. It could be replaced by something inspired by the comments I
outlined in reference to the paragraph above on thematic autonomy.

*(II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance

The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
things, the Forum should:

•       Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any
existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

       Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and
other
institutions on matters under their purview;

       Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
developing countries;

       Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the
relevant
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

•       Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in
developing
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

•       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet Governance processes.)*


Hope these comments help

Best

Bertrand
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/a0f3c542/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 15 08:04:14 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:34:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <200602151301.k1FD15Di044713@trout.cpsr.org>

Hi Jeanette,

 

I first read only part 1 of the submission, and thought its first point – ‘added value’ - was un-necessarily restrictive. 

 

To say 

 

>> The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing 

institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance>>>

 

is to give, more or less, complete acceptance to the existing arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general WSIS CS and of most other participants at WSIS (especially when the tunis agenda uses more substantive language – ‘build on the existing structures of IG’). So, I wanted to take this point out and add one on – ‘domain and competence’ of IGF taking points from many submissions we have made on this point. 

 

I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity building point at number 2 and wanted to move it down. I also had some problems with the part of the point on 'thematic autonomy' where the IGF function was made un-necessarily restrictive by mentioning only diffusing 'best practises' etc. We know we have always meant the IGF to have much greater functions. 

 

I thought these omissions (from my point of view) were minor, and that they came from different emphasis on different points - most of which were, in their essence, shared among us. 

 

However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the three most important points of this para

 

 

a)                Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;

 

e)      Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world;

 

j)        Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources;

 

So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by far the most important ones ???

With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to critical Internet resources……

And I cant take it to be un-intended omission, because all your listed points come from this para 72 (quoted below), so you CHOSE not to list these three points….

I have some very basic problem with the politics that inform these omissions. I have tried to be constructive and all in my engagements on this list – but at this point I have no option but to state the matters in the strong terms that I have done here. 

I think it is time IG caucus decided at least its broad political stands on the IG issues, within which the debate can take place. If CS is going to seek great dilution (from a progressive standpoint - whatever it may mean, but such terms are generally associated with CS) of commitments already made by governments in official summit docs rather than trying to take things further ahead, I don’t see the point in being with such an CS engagement at all. I know the multi-stakeholder and CS participations points are still there – but if these are the directions that CS participation is going to take, Id rather be represented by my country’s government’s nominee.  

regards

Parminder 

 

I am quoting para 72 of Tunis agenda for anyone to make their conclusions vis a vis clear specific exclusions mentioned above from the list submitted in the proposed submission on behalf of the IG caucus. 

 

Para 72;  We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:

 

a)      Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;

b)      Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body;

c)      Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview; 

d)      Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

e)      Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world;

f)       Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;

g)      Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

h)      Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

i)        Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;

j)        Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources;

k)     Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;

l)        Publish its proceedings.

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:19 AM
To: Governance Caucus
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

 

Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential 

caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.

 

*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need 

further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.

 

*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome too.

 

Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps 

somebody already in Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance

 

 

•     Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing 

institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending 

participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of 

dialogue, discussion and development in this field.

 

•     Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in 

Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in 

Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider 

communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific 

barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing 

countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet 

Governance.

 

•     Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to the 

participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions 

including governments, private sector, civil society and international 

organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied 

to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such 

as the secretariat and a potential program committee.

 

•     Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance should not 

be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness 

of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote 

participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable 

to attend in person.

 

•     Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of the forum 

that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is 

expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making 

capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective 

working principle to enable high quality results.

 

•     Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics as it 

considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are 

cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and 

competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be 

seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that 

promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating 

and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.

 

•     Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing process 

with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller 

thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should 

constitute just one element in this process.

 

•     Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for 

the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In 

considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to 

governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure 

should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability 

of entrance visas.

 

•     Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must take an 

open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership 

and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must 

publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.

 

 

II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance

 

 

The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet 

Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in 

relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other 

things, the Forum should:

 

•     Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between 

bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding 

the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any 

existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the 

expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

 

     Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other 

institutions on matters under their purview;

 

     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing 

and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from 

developing countries;

 

     Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant 

bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

 

•     Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing 

countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

 

•     Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS 

principles in Internet Governance processes.

 

 

jeanette

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/5685da69/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Feb 15 08:05:32 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:05:32 -0500
Subject: [governance] location
Message-ID: <s3f2e0e3.001@gwia201.syr.edu>

I agree with Bret Fausett's idea that the concept of a "distributed secretariat" should mean that the physical location of the staff should not be that important. Indeed, that is to me almost a litmus test of whether people are thinking in routine UN ways of doing things or moving beyond that. 

>>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 2/14/2006 1:00:14 PM >>>
On 2/14/06, karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org> wrote:
> hi mctim
>
> I don't think there's much weight to the greek proposal of hosting
> the secretariat..

neither do I, I am more concerned about another Geneva body growing
fat and moribund.

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

_______________________________________________
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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 15 08:07:11 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:37:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0602150307x6d278ebfs6fa30f6920b7f3c6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602151303.k1FD3xAC044756@trout.cpsr.org>

Dear Bertrand, 

 

Thanks for pointing out 

 

>> It helps shorten the text and the present formulation is a little too
apologetic, as if we were voluntarily limiting the scope of activities ithe
IGF can endeavour.>>

 

(I saw your submission only after I posted mine)

 

And recommending that

 

>> Mentioning para 72 here is the hook we can leverage later to refine the
missions and roles of the IGF. As a consequence, the rest of the paragraph
should better be suppressed.>>

 

I support this recommendation. 

 

Regards

 

Parminder 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

 <http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net 

  _____  

From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La
Chapelle
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:37 PM
To: Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

 

Dear all,

 

Excellent draft Jeanette, thanks.

 

I suppose the text could be finalized during the caucus meeting tonight.

 

A few comments below : new text underlined, (deleted text is in italic
between brackets). 


.       Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider 
communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
countries, found in the current (institutional structures) processes of
Internet
Governance.

 

Rationale : it keeps closer to the language of the Tunis Agenda (para 72i)
and covers not only institutions but also more diffuse mechanisms.


.       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to
the
participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
including governments, private sector, civil society and international 
organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum, including
(such
as) the secretariat and a potential program committee. 

Rationale : this formulation allows to cover future thematic working groups
without having to mention them explicitely at that stage.


.       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose the issues it
addresses (its topics) as it considers appropriate, in application of its
lmissions and mandate as defined, inter alia, by para 72 of the Tunis
Agenda.  (Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are cross-cutting
issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and competences of existing
organizations. However, the forum should not be seen as their competitor.
The IGF will function as a facilitator that 
promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.)

Rationale : This is a critical paragraph to establish the right of the Forum
to define its agenda. Thanks for thinking about inserting it. It could be
titled "Right of initiative" or "Agenda-setting", but I suppose the present
formulation is more appropriate at that stage, in order to ruffle less
feathers.  

 

I suggest to explicitely quote paragraph 72 because it actually defines
three very important elements for the Forum :

- a precise range of 5 allowed roles : neutral facilitation (facilitates,
interfaces, etc...), participative deliberation (discuss issues), advisory
role (make recommendations, advise on ways and means, help find solutions),
capacity building (exchange of best practices, monitoring role (identify
emerging issues, assess embodiment of principles) 

- a list of 6 types of issues the IGF can address : key elements of Internet
governance; cross-cutting international public policies; issues out of the
scope of existing bodies; emerging issues; issues relating to critical
internet ressources; issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet 

- 4 broad-ranging missions (even if they are not called like this) :
fostering the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and
development of the Internet; accelerate the availability and affordability
of the Internet in the developing world; strengthen engagement of
stakeholders in existing and/or future IG mechanisms; promote the embodiment
of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.   

 

Mentioning para 72 here is the hook we can leverage later to refine the
missions and roles of the IGF. As a consequence, the rest of the paragraph
should better be suppressed. It helps shorten the text and the present
formulation is a little too apologetic, as if we were voluntarily limiting
the scope of activities ithe IGF can endeavour. 

 

.       Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for
the forum activities should be accessibility to all potential participants.
In
considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to 
governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
of entrance visas.

Rationale : As mentionned in a previous post, we need to avoid equating the
Forum with its secretariat. Location of the secretariat is one issue; where
face to face activities will take place is another one : annual meetings
could take place in different locations and the secretariat itself could
have a distributed structure, including the setting up in due time of
support staff for thematic activities and working roups. 

___________
 

Finally, I would suggest to suppress entirely the part II at that stage. It
basically reiterates para 72 on the mandate without adding anything
particular. It could be replaced by something inspired by the comments I
outlined in reference to the paragraph above on thematic autonomy. 

(II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance

The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other 
things, the Forum should:

.       Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any 
existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

*       Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and
other 
institutions on matters under their purview;

*       Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
developing countries; 

*       Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the
relevant
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

.       Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in
developing 
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

.       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet Governance processes.)
 

 

Hope these comments help

 

Best

 

Bertrand

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/6014d1d8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From vb at bertola.eu.org  Wed Feb 15 08:08:52 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:08:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060215093519.01f88228@gn.apc.org>
References: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060215093519.01f88228@gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <1140008933.7269.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Il giorno mer, 15/02/2006 alle 09.40 +0000, karen banks ha scritto:
> hi
> 
> i've looked over very quickly and can support 
> everything here - we would have additional points 
> to make, or would emphasize some points more than 
> others, but can do so in a separate intervention.
> 
> the two points i would add, or, think are missing 
> - are the importance of a rights based approach 
> to the forum (with specific reference to privacy 
> and freedom of expression)

I would much support this, and please also add consumer rights - I think
it's the issue with the highest importance/underestimation ratio :-)

>  and the importance of 
> an overriding development orientation to the work 
> of the IGF (i don't see any reference to 
> developing country priorities in this text, 
> excepting that of capacity building and 
> participation - which are of course important, 
> but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)

I am fine if it is a sort of "as well as" - development issues are as
important as the others (content, rights, resource administration etc.).
Not if it were either issue of this list above the others.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Wed Feb 15 08:47:07 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:47:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] draft for a intervention => caucus meetings
In-Reply-To: <200602151303.k1FD3xAC044756@trout.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOAECHGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

I have asked Renate to see if CONGO can procure a space for the caucus to meet during the consultation.  She doesn't have hard confirmation yet, but thinks we should be able to use the NGO Lounge near the cafeteria in building E during the Thursday-Friday lunch breaks.  Worst case scenario, we can grab a corner of the cafeteria or coffee lounge or squat in an empty meeting room.  My suggestion would be that we have a focused discussion on site to touch up and finalize a caucus statement, as there are apparently some differences of view, or at least emphasis, that need to be reconciled, and it's unlikely we're going to pull this off in the next couple of hours with people traveling etc.  I don't see how we could do this in a noisy crowded bar tonight, especially with seemingly only a handful of folks having arrived by then.  It's not absolutely imperative that the text be posted prior to the opening of the consultation anyway, whenever it's done we can have the secretariat post it and mention this in a floor intervention.

Best,

Bill



-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Parminder
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:07 PM
To: 'Bertrand de La Chapelle'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva


  Dear Bertrand, 

   

  Thanks for pointing out 

   

  >> It helps shorten the text and the present formulation is a little too apologetic, as if we were voluntarily limiting the scope of activities ithe IGF can endeavour.>>

   

  (I saw your submission only after I posted mine)

   

  And recommending that

   

  >> Mentioning para 72 here is the hook we can leverage later to refine the missions and roles of the IGF. As a consequence, the rest of the paragraph should better be suppressed.>>

   

  I support this recommendation. 

   

  Regards

   

  Parminder 

   

  ________________________________________________

  Parminder Jeet Singh

  IT for Change

  Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

  91-80-26654134

  www.ITforChange.net 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
  Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:37 PM
  To: Jeanette Hofmann
  Cc: Governance Caucus
  Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

   

  Dear all,

   

  Excellent draft Jeanette, thanks.

   

  I suppose the text could be finalized during the caucus meeting tonight.

   

  A few comments below : new text underlined, (deleted text is in italic between brackets). 


    .       Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
    Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
    Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider 
    communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
    barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
    countries, found in the current (institutional structures) processes of Internet
    Governance.

   

  Rationale : it keeps closer to the language of the Tunis Agenda (para 72i) and covers not only institutions but also more diffuse mechanisms.


    .       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to the
    participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
    including governments, private sector, civil society and international 
    organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
    to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum, including (such
    as) the secretariat and a potential program committee. 

  Rationale : this formulation allows to cover future thematic working groups without having to mention them explicitely at that stage.


    .       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose the issues it addresses (its topics) as it considers appropriate, in application of its lmissions and mandate as defined, inter alia, by para 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  (Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that 
    promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
    and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.)

  Rationale : This is a critical paragraph to establish the right of the Forum to define its agenda. Thanks for thinking about inserting it. It could be titled "Right of initiative" or "Agenda-setting", but I suppose the present formulation is more appropriate at that stage, in order to ruffle less feathers.  

   

  I suggest to explicitely quote paragraph 72 because it actually defines three very important elements for the Forum :

  - a precise range of 5 allowed roles : neutral facilitation (facilitates, interfaces, etc...), participative deliberation (discuss issues), advisory role (make recommendations, advise on ways and means, help find solutions), capacity building (exchange of best practices, monitoring role (identify emerging issues, assess embodiment of principles) 

  - a list of 6 types of issues the IGF can address : key elements of Internet governance; cross-cutting international public policies; issues out of the scope of existing bodies; emerging issues; issues relating to critical internet ressources; issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet 

  - 4 broad-ranging missions (even if they are not called like this) : fostering the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet; accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world; strengthen engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future IG mechanisms; promote the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.   

   

  Mentioning para 72 here is the hook we can leverage later to refine the missions and roles of the IGF. As a consequence, the rest of the paragraph should better be suppressed. It helps shorten the text and the present formulation is a little too apologetic, as if we were voluntarily limiting the scope of activities ithe IGF can endeavour. 

   

    .       Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for
    the forum activities should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
    considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to 
    governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
    should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
    of entrance visas.

  Rationale : As mentionned in a previous post, we need to avoid equating the Forum with its secretariat. Location of the secretariat is one issue; where face to face activities will take place is another one : annual meetings could take place in different locations and the secretariat itself could have a distributed structure, including the setting up in due time of support staff for thematic activities and working roups. 

  ___________
   

  Finally, I would suggest to suppress entirely the part II at that stage. It basically reiterates para 72 on the mandate without adding anything particular. It could be replaced by something inspired by the comments I outlined in reference to the paragraph above on thematic autonomy. 

  (II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance

  The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
  Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
  relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other 
  things, the Forum should:

  .       Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
  bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
  the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any 
  existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
  expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

  ?       Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other 
  institutions on matters under their purview;

  ?       Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
  and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
  developing countries; 

  ?       Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
  bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

  .       Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing 
  countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

  .       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
  principles in Internet Governance processes.)
   

   

  Hope these comments help

   

  Best

   

  Bertrand

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/07956cfd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca  Wed Feb 15 10:37:54 2006
From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:37:54 -0500
Subject: [governance] Updated draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <002001c63245$cb0284f0$0201a8c0@jgsnotebook>

Hello Everyone,

 

I have been compiling the comments and suggested changes to the draft
caucus intervention document that was forwarded yesterday.


I am attaching a word document of the original text, onto which I have
pasted all comments in bold and italics and suggestions for additions in
blue text and for deletions in red text. I hope it is clear.

 

I second Bill's suggestion that the caucus meeting should be the site of
the final revision and that on site participants should be charged with
negotiating between the virtual suggestions and their own positions.


Thus far comments have been received by: Wolfgang, Danny, Karen,
Bertrand, Parminder and Vittorio. Most have expressed the support for
the statement pending some revisions, however it has also been suggested
by others that Part II of the document is problematic and even
unsupportable (see details in text).

 

If possible, I will update this document again if more comments come in.

 

Regards,

Jeremy Shtern

 

See attached and below for text:

 

I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance

 

*	Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the
existing institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by
extending participation to a broader community and by improving the
quality of dialogue, discussion and development in this field. 

 

[Parminder suggests: I thought its first point – ‘added value’ - was
un-necessarily restrictive. 

To say 

 

>> The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing 

institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance>>>

 

is to give, more or less, complete acceptance to the existing
arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general
WSIS CS and of most other participants at WSIS (especially when the
tunis agenda uses more substantive language – ‘build on the existing
structures of IG’). So, I wanted to take this point out and add one on –
‘domain and competence’ of IGF taking points from many submissions we
have made on this point.] 

 

*        Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity
in Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
countries, found in the current institutional structures [Bertrand
suggests: delete “institutional structures”, add “processes”] of
Internet Governance. 

 

[Parminder suggests: I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity
building point at number 2 and wanted to move it down.] 

 

*        Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open
to the participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
including governments, private sector, civil society and international
organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such
as [Bertrand suggests: delete “such as”, add “including”]the secretariat
and a potential program committee. 

 

*        Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance
should not be required for participation. In order to strengthen the
inclusiveness of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms
of remote participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who
are unable to attend in person. 

 

*        Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of the
forum that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the
forum is expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision
making capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most
effective working principle to enable high quality results. 

 

*        Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics
as it considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance
are cross-cutting [Wolfgang suggest:  add “ trans-disciplinary and
inter-institutional”] issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be
seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that
promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge. 

 

[Parminder suggests: I also had some problems with the part of the point
on 'thematic autonomy' where the IGF function was made un-necessarily
restrictive by mentioning only diffusing 'best practises' etc. We know
we have always meant the IGF to have much greater functions.]

 

[Bertrand suggests Alt paragraph to the above as follows: 

 

“Right of initiative/Agenda-setting:  The Forum must be free to choose
the issues it addresses as it considers appropriate, in application of
its missions and mandate as defined, inter alia, by para 72 of the Tunis
Agenda.”

 

Bertrand’s Rationale : This is a critical paragraph to establish the
right of the Forum to define its agenda. Thanks for thinking about
inserting it. It could be titled "Right of initiative" or
"Agenda-setting", but I suppose the present formulation is more
appropriate at that stage, in order to ruffle less feathers.  

 

I suggest to explicitely quote paragraph 72 because it actually defines
three very important elements for the Forum :

- a precise range of 5 allowed roles : neutral facilitation
(facilitates, interfaces, etc...), participative deliberation (discuss
issues), advisory role (make recommendations, advise on ways and means,
help find solutions), capacity building (exchange of best practices,
monitoring role (identify emerging issues, assess embodiment of
principles) 

- a list of 6 types of issues the IGF can address : key elements of
Internet governance; cross-cutting international public policies; issues
out of the scope of existing bodies; emerging issues; issues relating to
critical internet ressources; issues arising from the use and misuse of
the Internet 

- 4 broad-ranging missions (even if they are not called like this) :
fostering the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and
development of the Internet; accelerate the availability and
affordability of the Internet in the developing world; strengthen
engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future IG mechanisms;
promote the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance
processes.   

 

Mentioning para 72 here is the hook we can leverage later to refine the
missions and roles of the IGF. As a consequence, the rest of the
paragraph should better be suppressed. It helps shorten the text and the
present formulation is a little too apologetic, as if we were
voluntarily limiting the scope of activities ithe IGF can endeavour.]

 

*        Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing
process with most of its work taking place throughout the year in
smaller thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings
should constitute just one element in this process. 

 

*        Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations
for the forum [Bertrand suggests: add “activities”] should be
accessibility to all potential participants. In considering perspective
locations issues such as: proximity to governmental missions and the
local hotel and transit infrastructure should be balanced with concerns
about travel costs and the availability of entrance visas. 

 

*        Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must
take an open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures,
membership and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The
forum must publish regular and frequent reports detailing its
activities.

 

*        [Danny (in response to Wolfgang): Human Rights: The work of the
Forum should protect and promote human rights principles as contained in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular provisions for
privacy and freedom of expression.]

 

 

 

New Sections suggested for Part I:

 

[Wolfgang: as CS we should add one para. on the special interests of
individual users and probably also on minority groups. 

- What about one para saying, that the work of the Forum has to be based
on the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, in mparticular Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy]

 

[Karen: - the importance of a rights based approach 

to the forum (with specific reference to privacy 

and freedom of expression) 

- the importance of  an overriding development orientation to the work 

of the IGF (i don't see any reference to 

developing country priorities in this text, 

excepting that of capacity building and 

participation - which are of course important, 

but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)]

 

[Vittorio: Consumer rights need to be added]

 

 

II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance

 

[Parminder suggests: when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was
nothing less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from
the Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the
three most important points of this para

 

 

a)                  Discuss public policy issues related to key elements
of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability,
robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;

 

e)      Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to
accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the
developing world;

 

j)        Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet
resources;

 

So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the
functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by
far the most important ones ???

With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss
public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of
Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to critical
Internet resources



And I cant take it to be un-intended omission, because all your listed
points come from this para 72 (quoted below), so you CHOSE not to list
these three points
.

I have some very basic problem with the politics that inform these
omissions. I have tried to be constructive and all in my engagements on
this list – but at this point I have no option but to state the matters
in the strong terms that I have done here. 

I think it is time IG caucus decided at least its broad political stands
on the IG issues, within which the debate can take place. If CS is going
to seek great dilution (from a progressive standpoint - whatever it may
mean, but such terms are generally associated with CS) of commitments
already made by governments in official summit docs rather than trying
to take things further ahead, I don’t see the point in being with such
an CS engagement at all. I know the multi-stakeholder and CS
participations points are still there – but if these are the directions
that CS participation is going to take, Id rather be represented by my
country’s government’s nominee. ]

 

[Bertrand suggests: I would suggest to suppress entirely the part II at
that stage. It basically reiterates para 72 on the mandate without
adding anything particular. It could be replaced by something inspired
by the comments I outlined in reference to the paragraph above on
thematic autonom.]



[Parminder supports Bertrand’s proposed amendments]

 

The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
things, the Forum should:

 

*	Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices
between bodies dealing with different international public policies
regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the
scope of any existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full
use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical
communities;

 

*	Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and
other institutions on matters under their purview;

 

*	Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in
existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly
those from       developing countries;

 

*	Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the
relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
recommendations;

 

*	Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in
developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and
expertise;

 

*	Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet Governance processes. 

 

 

 

 

 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=

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 Wolfgang
Kleinwächter
Sent: February 15, 2006 2:09 AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann; Governance Caucus
Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for
Geneva

 

I can agree with the statement. I would probably add to "cross cutting"
als trans-disciplinary and inter-institutional.

 

Another point, as CS we should add one para. on the special interests of
individual users and probably also on minority groups. What about one
para saying, that the work of the Forum has to be based on the
fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in
mparticular Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy?

 

Wolfgang

 

   

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann

Sent: Tue 2/14/2006 11:48 PM

To: Governance Caucus

Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

 

Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential 

caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.

 

*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need 

further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.

 

*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome
too.

 

Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps 

somebody already in Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance

 

 

.           Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the
existing 

institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending 

participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of 

dialogue, discussion and development in this field.

 

.           Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building
capacity in 

Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in 

Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider 

communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific 

barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing 

countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet 

Governance.

 

.           Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be
open to the 

participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions 

including governments, private sector, civil society and international 

organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied


to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such 

as the secretariat and a potential program committee.

 

.           Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance
should not 

be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness 

of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote 

participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable 

to attend in person.

 

.           Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of
the forum 

that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is 

expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making 

capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective 

working principle to enable high quality results.

 

.           Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its
topics as it 

considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are 

cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and 

competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be 

seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that 

promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating 

and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.

 

.           Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing
process 

with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller 

thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should 

constitute just one element in this process.

 

.           Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing
locations for 

the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In 

considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to 

governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure 

should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability


of entrance visas.

 

.           Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must
take an 

open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership 

and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must 

publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.

 

 

II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance

 

 

The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet 

Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in 

relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other 

things, the Forum should:

 

.           Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices
between 

bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding 

the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any


existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the 

expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

 

?          Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations
and other 

institutions on matters under their purview;

 

?          Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in
existing 

and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from 

developing countries;

 

?          Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the
relevant 

bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
recommendations;

 

.           Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in
developing 

countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

 

.           Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of
WSIS 

principles in Internet Governance processes.

 

 

jeanette

 

_______________________________________________

governance mailing list

governance at lists.cpsr.org

https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/d712d9ba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CS-intervention-Geneva-consultation-forum-j-j-version-comments.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 59904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/d712d9ba/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From drake at hei.unige.ch  Wed Feb 15 11:21:07 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:21:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] draft for a intervention => caucus meetings
In-Reply-To: <200602151609.k1FG93UI003463@homer2.tic.ch>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOAECLGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

Excellent news, thanks much for your help.

Best,

Bill



-----Original Message-----
From: CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at iprolink.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:09 PM
To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance Caucus'
Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; wsis at ngocongo.org
Subject: RE: [governance] draft for a intervention => caucus meetings


  Hi Bill.

   

  This is to confirm that the NGO Lounge is booked tomorrow and Friday (16-17 February from 13.00 to 15.00 hours) under CONGO for IG Caucus meetings during lunch-breaks.

   

  Fyi, the NGO Lounge is situated at the UN Ground Floor, in the long corridor which brings to the cafeteria.

   

  Best regards, 

   

  Philippe

   

   

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de William Drake
  Envoyé : mercredi, 15. février 2006 14:47
  À : 'Governance Caucus'
  Objet : [governance] draft for a intervention => caucus meetings

   

  Hi,

   

  I have asked Renate to see if CONGO can procure a space for the caucus to meet during the consultation.  She doesn't have hard confirmation yet, but thinks we should be able to use the NGO Lounge near the cafeteria in building E during the Thursday-Friday lunch breaks.  Worst case scenario, we can grab a corner of the cafeteria or coffee lounge or squat in an empty meeting room.  My suggestion would be that we have a focused discussion on site to touch up and finalize a caucus statement, as there are apparently some differences of view, or at least emphasis, that need to be reconciled, and it's unlikely we're going to pull this off in the next couple of hours with people traveling etc.  I don't see how we could do this in a noisy crowded bar tonight, especially with seemingly only a handful of folks having arrived by then.  It's not absolutely imperative that the text be posted prior to the opening of the consultation anyway, whenever it's done we can have the secretariat post it and mention this in a floor intervention.

   

  Best,

   

  Bill

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Parminder
  Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:07 PM
  To: 'Bertrand de La Chapelle'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
  Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
  Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

    Dear Bertrand, 

     

    Thanks for pointing out 

     

    >> It helps shorten the text and the present formulation is a little too apologetic, as if we were voluntarily limiting the scope of activities ithe IGF can endeavour.>>

     

    (I saw your submission only after I posted mine)

     

    And recommending that

     

    >> Mentioning para 72 here is the hook we can leverage later to refine the missions and roles of the IGF. As a consequence, the rest of the paragraph should better be suppressed.>>

     

    I support this recommendation. 

     

    Regards

     

    Parminder 

     

    ________________________________________________

    Parminder Jeet Singh

    IT for Change

    Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

    91-80-26654134

    www.ITforChange.net 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
    Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:37 PM
    To: Jeanette Hofmann
    Cc: Governance Caucus
    Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

     

    Dear all,

     

    Excellent draft Jeanette, thanks.

     

    I suppose the text could be finalized during the caucus meeting tonight.

     

    A few comments below : new text underlined, (deleted text is in italic between brackets). 


      •       Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
      Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
      Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider 
      communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
      barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
      countries, found in the current (institutional structures) processes of Internet
      Governance.

     

    Rationale : it keeps closer to the language of the Tunis Agenda (para 72i) and covers not only institutions but also more diffuse mechanisms.


      •       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to the
      participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
      including governments, private sector, civil society and international 
      organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
      to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum, including (such
      as) the secretariat and a potential program committee. 

    Rationale : this formulation allows to cover future thematic working groups without having to mention them explicitely at that stage.


      •       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose the issues it addresses (its topics) as it considers appropriate, in application of its lmissions and mandate as defined, inter alia, by para 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  (Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that 
      promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
      and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.)

    Rationale : This is a critical paragraph to establish the right of the Forum to define its agenda. Thanks for thinking about inserting it. It could be titled "Right of initiative" or "Agenda-setting", but I suppose the present formulation is more appropriate at that stage, in order to ruffle less feathers.  

     

    I suggest to explicitely quote paragraph 72 because it actually defines three very important elements for the Forum :

    - a precise range of 5 allowed roles : neutral facilitation (facilitates, interfaces, etc...), participative deliberation (discuss issues), advisory role (make recommendations, advise on ways and means, help find solutions), capacity building (exchange of best practices, monitoring role (identify emerging issues, assess embodiment of principles) 

    - a list of 6 types of issues the IGF can address : key elements of Internet governance; cross-cutting international public policies; issues out of the scope of existing bodies; emerging issues; issues relating to critical internet ressources; issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet 

    - 4 broad-ranging missions (even if they are not called like this) : fostering the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet; accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world; strengthen engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future IG mechanisms; promote the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.   

     

    Mentioning para 72 here is the hook we can leverage later to refine the missions and roles of the IGF. As a consequence, the rest of the paragraph should better be suppressed. It helps shorten the text and the present formulation is a little too apologetic, as if we were voluntarily limiting the scope of activities ithe IGF can endeavour. 

     

      •       Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for
      the forum activities should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
      considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to 
      governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
      should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
      of entrance visas.

    Rationale : As mentionned in a previous post, we need to avoid equating the Forum with its secretariat. Location of the secretariat is one issue; where face to face activities will take place is another one : annual meetings could take place in different locations and the secretariat itself could have a distributed structure, including the setting up in due time of support staff for thematic activities and working roups. 

    ___________
     

    Finally, I would suggest to suppress entirely the part II at that stage. It basically reiterates para 72 on the mandate without adding anything particular. It could be replaced by something inspired by the comments I outlined in reference to the paragraph above on thematic autonomy. 

    (II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance

    The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
    Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
    relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other 
    things, the Forum should:

    •       Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
    bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
    the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any 
    existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
    expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;

    §       Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other 
    institutions on matters under their purview;

    §       Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
    and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
    developing countries; 

    §       Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
    bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

    •       Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing 
    countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

    •       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
    principles in Internet Governance processes.)
     

     

    Hope these comments help

     

    Best

     

    Bertrand

     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/ce8631f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU  Wed Feb 15 11:49:07 2006
From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:49:07 -0500
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
Message-ID: <A0E19BF31237DE4A9B1FF1E122FAC13A16302B63@ADMCLUSTER.njitdm.campus.njit.edu>

As I expected, but a bit earlier than I assumed, mission creep for the IGF has already been initiated and by CS rather than by any of the other actors.  

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Karen and Parminder that "access" (and thus "development") issues should be discussed at the IGF--if not there, where; and of course, it is difficult to distinguish issues of "access" and "capacity building" from "development" (and I guess that then means a not too big a lurch over into overall issues of ICT4D, yes?)...

BUT, wasn't the division of responsibility to have been Internet Governance/Policy with the IGF and ICT4D with the Global Alliance (whose gestation has been even more lengthy and wrapped in shrouds of UN intrigue--an "extensive consultation", hmmm...--than the IGF...

Again, maybe it would be best to have all the issues addressed in the IGF and leave the GA to moulder with the other "high level but participative UN blah blah's", but if that is the case, then the responsibilities that flow from that, and for everyone including (or especially) CS folks to figure out and make representations around all the issues of inclusion, "representivity", support mechanisms for participation, a possible role in direct policy development and even project implementation etc.etc. (which flows more or less directly from including the ICT4D "mandate") rears its head more or less immediately.

That is, CS like everyone else can't have it both ways--having all the issues of importance (to the various components of CS) on the table in the IGF, without at the same time recognizing that some of those issues have much much broader constituencies and much more immediate physical impacts on folks on the ground than the rather more rarified (and dare I say "virtual") issues of things like spam and the allocations of responsibilities within the DNS, and that this being the case, maintaining the IGF as a rather exclusive talk shop for Internet (and travel funded) cognoscenti isn't going to (ahem) fly.

MG   

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
Sent: February 15, 2006 10:41 AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann; Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva


hi

i've looked over very quickly and can support 
everything here - we would have additional points 
to make, or would emphasize some points more than 
others, but can do so in a separate intervention.

the two points i would add, or, think are missing 
- are the importance of a rights based approach 
to the forum (with specific reference to privacy 
and freedom of expression) and the importance of 
an overriding development orientation to the work 
of the IGF (i don't see any reference to 
developing country priorities in this text, 
excepting that of capacity building and 
participation - which are of course important, 
but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)

anyway, if this is too difficult - i can raise in our intervention..

APC will post it's survey response today, very 
late.. and i'll post a copy here..

In some ways, we are still thinking, so the 
responses are not necessarily final final positions or perspectives ..

karen

At 22:48 14/02/2006, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual
>very late, a potential caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
>
>*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or
>which parts need further editing or should be 
>deleted because they are controversial.
>
>*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome 
>too.
>
>Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good
>if somebody - perhaps somebody already in 
>Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
>
>
>*       Added Value: The goal of the forum is to 
>add value to the existing institutional
>arrangements relevant to Internet governance by 
>extending participation to a broader community 
>and by improving the quality of dialogue, 
>discussion and development in this field.
>
>*       Capacity-building: The IGF must 
>contribute to building capacity in Internet
>governance amongst all stakeholders directly 
>engaged in Internet Governance and ICT policy 
>issues as well as within the wider communities 
>affected by them. The IGF must overcome the 
>specific barriers to effective participation, in 
>particular from developing countries, found in 
>the current institutional structures of Internet Governance.
>
>*       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: 
>The forum must be open to the participation of
>all relevant actors from all sectors and regions 
>including governments, private sector, civil 
>society and international organizations. The 
>multi-stakeholder approach should not only be 
>applied to the forum but to all bodies and 
>processes related to the forum such as the 
>secretariat and a potential program committee.
>
>*       Inclusiveness and remote participation: 
>Physical attendance should not be required for
>participation. In order to strengthen the 
>inclusiveness of its collaboration, the forum 
>should integrate new forms of remote 
>participation to enable contributions from 
>stakeholders who are unable to attend in person.
>
>*       Equality of participation: It is vital 
>to the legitimacy of the forum that all
>stakeholders participate on an equal basis. 
>Since the forum is expected to act as a 
>facilitating body without binding decision 
>making capacity, equal footing for all 
>participants is the most effective working 
>principle to enable high quality results.
>
>*       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be 
>free to choose its topics as it considers
>appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet 
>Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch 
>upon the responsibilities and competences of 
>existing organizations. However, the forum 
>should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF 
>will function as a facilitator that promotes 
>enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies 
>by generating and diffusing "best-practice" and 
>"lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
>
>*       Forum as process: The forum should be 
>designed as an ongoing process with most of its
>work taking place throughout the year in smaller 
>thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to 
>face meetings should constitute just one element in this process.
>
>*       Accessible location: The highest 
>priority in choosing locations for the forum
>should be accessibility to all potential 
>participants. In considering perspective 
>locations issues such as: proximity to 
>governmental missions and the local hotel and 
>transit infrastructure should be balanced with 
>concerns about travel costs and the availability of entrance visas.
>
>*       Transparency: For the sake of its 
>legitimacy, the forum must take an open and
>transparent approach to its structure, 
>procedures, membership and to all of its 
>deliberations and recommendations. The forum 
>must publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
>
>
>II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
>
>
>The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
>calls on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to 
>play a multidimensional, catalytic role in 
>relation to existing Internet governance 
>mechanisms.  Among other things, the Forum should:
>
>*       Facilitate the exchange of information 
>and best practices between bodies dealing with
>different international public policies 
>regarding the Internet and discuss issues that 
>do not fall within the scope of any existing 
>body. In this regard the Forum should make full 
>use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
>
>ï'§     Interface: with appropriate 
>inter-governmental organizations and other
>institutions on matters under their purview;
>
>ï'§     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of 
>stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet
>Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
>
>ï'§     Identify emerging issues, bring them to 
>the attention of the relevant bodies and the
>general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
>
>*       Contribute to capacity-building for 
>Internet Governance in developing countries,
>drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
>
>*       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, 
>the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.
>
>
>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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Wed Feb 15 11:54:32 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:54:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
 elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <200602151301.k1FD15Di044713@trout.cpsr.org>
References: <200602151301.k1FD15Di044713@trout.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <43F35CC8.4090802@wz-berlin.de>

Parminder,

I have mentioned weeks ago that the caucus should think about a 
statement for the Geneva consultation. I got no response, and nobody 
drafted anything. This is why I decided yesterday to put together a list 
of principles regarding the forum; principles I assume the caucus finds 
relevant.

Karen suggested that I include parts of Bill's Malta presentation. She 
attached that presentation so that everybody on this list could read it.
Nobody objected, so Jeremy and I added parts of Bill's presentation. As 
far as I am concerned, we can drop the second part or replace it by new 
language.

The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective 
process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged 
elements of recent contributions.

Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply not 
true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to 
give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.

I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this 
list in more polite and respectful way.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Jeanette,
> 
>  
> 
> I first read only part 1 of the submission, and thought its first point 
> – ‘added value’ - was un-necessarily restrictive.
> 
>  
> 
> To say
> 
>  
> 
>> > The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> 
> institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance>>>
> 
>  
> 
> is to give, more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 
> WSIS CS and of most other participants at WSIS (especially when the 
> tunis agenda uses more substantive language – ‘build on the existing 
> structures of IG’). So, I wanted to take this point out and add one on – 
> ‘domain and competence’ of IGF taking points from many submissions we 
> have made on this point.
> 
>  
> 
> I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity building point at number 
> 2 and wanted to move it down. I also had some problems with the part of 
> the point on 'thematic autonomy' where the IGF function was made 
> un-necessarily restrictive by mentioning only diffusing 'best practises' 
> etc. We know we have always meant the IGF to have much greater functions.
> 
>  
> 
> I thought these omissions (from my point of view) were minor, and that 
> they came from different emphasis on different points - most of which 
> were, in their essence, shared among us.
> 
>  
> 
> However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> three most important points of this para
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> a)                 Discuss public policy issues related to key elements 
> of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, 
> robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;
> 
>  
> 
> e)       Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> developing world;
> 
>  
> 
> j)         Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical Internet 
> resources;
> 
>  
> 
> So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> far the most important ones ???
> 
> With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to critical 
> Internet resources……
> 
> And I cant take it to be un-intended omission, because all your listed 
> points come from this para 72 (quoted below), so you CHOSE not to list 
> these three points….
> 
> I have some very basic problem with the politics that inform these 
> omissions. I have tried to be constructive and all in my engagements on 
> this list – but at this point I have no option but to state the matters 
> in the strong terms that I have done here.
> 
> I think it is time IG caucus decided at least its broad political stands 
> on the IG issues, within which the debate can take place. If CS is going 
> to seek great dilution (from a progressive standpoint - whatever it may 
> mean, but such terms are generally associated with CS) of commitments 
> already made by governments in official summit docs rather than trying 
> to take things further ahead, I don’t see the point in being with such 
> an CS engagement at all. I know the multi-stakeholder and CS 
> participations points are still there – but if these are the directions 
> that CS participation is going to take, Id rather be represented by my 
> country’s government’s nominee.  
> 
> regards
> 
> Parminder
> 
>  
> 
> I am quoting para 72 of Tunis agenda for anyone to make their 
> conclusions vis a vis clear specific exclusions mentioned above from the 
> list submitted in the proposed submission on behalf of the IG caucus.
> 
>  
> 
> * Para 72;  We ask the UN Secretary-General *, in an open and inclusive 
> process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new 
> forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the /Internet 
> Governance Forum/ (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:
> 
>  
> 
> * a)       *Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of 
> Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
> security, stability and development of the Internet;
> 
> * b)       *Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different 
> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and 
> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body ;
> 
> * c)       *Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations 
> and other institutions on matters under their purview;
> 
> * d)       *Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, 
> and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, 
> scientific and technical communities;
> 
> * e)       *Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> developing world;
> 
> * f)        *Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in 
> existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly 
> those from developing countries;
> 
> * g)       *Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the 
> relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> recommendations;
> 
> * h)       *Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in 
> developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and 
> expertise;
> 
> * i)         *Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of 
> WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;
> 
> * j)         *Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical 
> Internet resources;
> 
> * k)      *Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and 
> misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
> 
> * l)         *Publish its proceedings.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> 
> IT for Change
> 
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> 
> 91-80-26654134
> 
> www.ITforChange.net
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:19 AM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
> 
>  
> 
> Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential
> 
> caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> 
>  
> 
> *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need
> 
> further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.
> 
>  
> 
> *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome too.
> 
>  
> 
> Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps
> 
> somebody already in Geneva ? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> 
>  
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> 
>  
> 
> I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> •     Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> 
> institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending
> 
> participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of
> 
> dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
> 
> Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
> 
> Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
> 
> communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
> 
> barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
> 
> countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet
> 
> Governance.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to 
> the
> 
> participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> 
> including governments, private sector, civil society and international
> 
> organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
> 
> to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such
> 
> as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance should 
> not
> 
> be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness
> 
> of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote
> 
> participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable
> 
> to attend in person.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of the forum
> 
> that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is
> 
> expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making
> 
> capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective
> 
> working principle to enable high quality results.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics as it
> 
> considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are
> 
> cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
> 
> competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be
> 
> seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that
> 
> promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
> 
> and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing process
> 
> with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> 
> thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should
> 
> constitute just one element in this process.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for
> 
> the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
> 
> considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
> 
> governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
> 
> should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
> 
> of entrance visas.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must take an
> 
> open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership
> 
> and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must
> 
> publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
> 
> Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> 
> relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
> 
> things, the Forum should:
> 
>  
> 
> •     Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
> 
> bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
> 
> the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any
> 
> existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
> 
> expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
> 
>  
> 
>      Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and 
> other
> 
> institutions on matters under their purview;
> 
>  
> 
>      Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> 
> and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> 
> developing countries;
> 
>  
> 
>      Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
> 
> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> recommendations;
> 
>  
> 
> •     Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing
> 
> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> 
>  
> 
> •     Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> 
> principles in Internet Governance processes.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 12:51:42 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:51:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <6C62E0CB-8BDC-4929-9CC1-F26684E4549D@psg.com>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>
	<43F20D28.4010405@wz-berlin.de>
	<6C62E0CB-8BDC-4929-9CC1-F26684E4549D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <954259bd0602150951n3b166486i88072b56bf39ae39@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all, dear Jeanette,

I must not have been clear enough. And Avri's comments help clarify things.

There was NO idea whatsoever in my comment about a rotating secretariat. And
YES, I support an initial secretariat in Geneva. AND, I believe Greece
should put in place an organizing committee for logistical matters related
to the first meeting.

More precisely, what I meant is :
- there should be a small independent start-up secretariat established as
soon as possible around Markus and Geneva - as far as I am concerned - seems
the best location; this secretariat would deal with general initiation of
the process and particularly in the case of the first Athens meeting, with
organizing further consultations on its substantive agenda and format; these
consultations, facilitated by the secretariat, would constitute an informal
Program Committee for Athens 2006 (and maybe help produce a more formal one)
- Greece, around George and their existing national Steering Committee,
should organize the logistical aspects of the first meeting in Athens :
rooms, translation, remote communications, connectivity, ....; they could
for instance set up a IGF 2006 Organizing Committee

In SUBSEQUENT phases, for instance after the first meeting of the Forum in
Athens, the "support functions" of the various Forum activities would
develop along three dimensions :
- for each annual meeting, hopefully in a different country each year, the
host organization woould establish its own organizing (and possibly program)
committee(s)
- as thematic threads (and eventually working groups) emerge in the IGF
process, various actors could volunteer to support them from their
own location, with temporary thematic support teams (can be a single person
part time, actually)
- the initial secretariat would in parallel develop as needs arise and
possibly establish antennas in various regions to cater to specific needs,
progressively building a DISTRIBUTED (not rotating) virtual secretariat

Once again, please keep in mind in terms of location a clear distinction
between the Secretariat(s) and the activities of the Forum. The worst thing
would be to maintain the intellectual framework of a traditional
organization : one location, all activities there, etc... As a matter of
fact, we do not need to reinvent the wheel : this type of conference
organizing mechanisms are absolutely routine in many areas. And after all,
even traditional intergovernmental organizations organize meetings in
different parts of the world apart from their headquarters and they have
offices in various places. The only difference is we want to set that up in
a more organic way, without lengthy debates on diplomatic or international
civil servant status and heavy procedures.

Best

Bertrand


On 2/14/06, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 14 feb 2006, at 18.02, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
> >
> > I find the idea of a rotating secretariat dangerous because that makes
> > it vulnerable to the institutional competition between various UN
> > organizations.
>
> i don't actually remember discussing a rotating secretariat.  but it
> may have been a terminology difference.  what i was talking about was
> the idea that the logistics of setting up meetings could rotate among
> other organizations.  if one thinks about a secretariat as a group
> that does lots of stuff and also organizes the logistics of meetings,
> this one piece was conceived of as possibly rotating.  at least that
> is what i was thinking about.  this chunk can get large and
> cumbersome, so this was one possible way of keeping the secretariat
> lean and focused on the substance of the forum administration.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/49e1819a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Wed Feb 15 13:26:28 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:26:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] location
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0602150951n3b166486i88072b56bf39ae39@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43F1CA27.7070908@wz-berlin.de>	
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOEEADGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>	
	<954259bd0602140746y62b9cebfo2a3ba6471b794642@mail.gmail.com>	
	<43F1FE25.3040408@wz-berlin.de>	
	<7.0.0.16.0.20060214164240.021ea610@gn.apc.org>	
	<43F20D28.4010405@wz-berlin.de>	
	<6C62E0CB-8BDC-4929-9CC1-F26684E4549D@psg.com>
	<954259bd0602150951n3b166486i88072b56bf39ae39@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43F37254.7080304@wz-berlin.de>

Hi Bertrand

I did indeed completely misunderstand what you mean. Thank you for the 
extra explanation.

jeanette

> Dear all, dear Jeanette,
>  
> I must not have been clear enough. And Avri's comments help clarify things.
>  
> There was NO idea whatsoever in my comment about a rotating secretariat. 
> And YES, I support an initial secretariat in Geneva. AND, I believe 
> Greece should put in place an organizing committee for logistical 
> matters related to the first meeting.
>  
> More precisely, what I meant is :
> - there should be a small independent start-up secretariat established 
> as soon as possible around Markus and Geneva - as far as I am concerned 
> - seems the best location; this secretariat would deal with general 
> initiation of the process and particularly in the case of the first 
> Athens meeting, with organizing further consultations on its substantive 
> agenda and format; these consultations, facilitated by the secretariat, 
> would constitute an informal Program Committee for Athens 2006 (and 
> maybe help produce a more formal one)
> - Greece, around George and their existing national Steering Committee, 
> should organize the logistical aspects of the first meeting in Athens : 
> rooms, translation, remote communications, connectivity, ....; they 
> could for instance set up a IGF 2006 Organizing Committee
>  
> In SUBSEQUENT phases, for instance after the first meeting of the Forum 
> in Athens, the "support functions" of the various Forum activities would 
> develop along three dimensions :  
> - for each annual meeting, hopefully in a different country each 
> year, the host organization woould establish its own organizing (and 
> possibly program) committee(s)
> - as thematic threads (and eventually working groups) emerge in the IGF 
> process, various actors could volunteer to support them from their 
> own location, with temporary thematic support teams (can be a single 
> person part time, actually)
> - the initial secretariat would in parallel develop as needs arise and 
> possibly establish antennas in various regions to cater to specific 
> needs, progressively building a DISTRIBUTED (not rotating) virtual 
> secretariat 
>  
> Once again, please keep in mind in terms of location a clear distinction 
> between the Secretariat(s) and the activities of the Forum. The worst 
> thing would be to maintain the intellectual framework of a traditional 
> organization : one location, all activities there, etc... As a matter of 
> fact, we do not need to reinvent the wheel : this type of conference 
> organizing mechanisms are absolutely routine in many areas. And after 
> all, even traditional intergovernmental organizations organize meetings 
> in different parts of the world apart from their headquarters and they 
> have offices in various places. The only difference is we want to set 
> that up in a more organic way, without lengthy debates on diplomatic or 
> international civil servant status and heavy procedures.  
>  
> Best
>  
> Bertrand
> 
>  
> On 2/14/06, *Avri Doria* <avri at psg.com <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     On 14 feb 2006, at 18.02, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
>      >
>      > I find the idea of a rotating secretariat dangerous because that
>     makes
>      > it vulnerable to the institutional competition between various UN
>      > organizations.
> 
>     i don't actually remember discussing a rotating secretariat.  but it
>     may have been a terminology difference.  what i was talking about was
>     the idea that the logistics of setting up meetings could rotate among
>     other organizations.  if one thinks about a secretariat as a group
>     that does lots of stuff and also organizes the logistics of meetings,
>     this one piece was conceived of as possibly rotating.  at least that
>     is what i was thinking about.  this chunk can get large and
>     cumbersome, so this was one possible way of keeping the secretariat
>     lean and focused on the substance of the forum administration.
> 
>     a.
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     governance mailing list
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>     <https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance>
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From db at dannybutt.net  Wed Feb 15 16:19:09 2006
From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:19:09 +1300
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <43F35CC8.4090802@wz-berlin.de>
References: <200602151301.k1FD15Di044713@trout.cpsr.org>
	<43F35CC8.4090802@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <D9758B0E-1331-482D-BFE0-5E2D92B91A51@dannybutt.net>

I support the essence of Parminder's comments - with respect for the  
work people are doing I think it's not true that it "reflects a  
collective process of thinking" in a meaningful way, because there  
are very different levels of involvement and investment in the process.

This is the "governance of CS caucus" issue that we discussed last  
year (and reached no agreement on from memory). Until there is  
progress on this the status quo will remain, and the perception from  
some that this suits a particular group with a shared history and a  
relatively shared culture and assumptions will also remain.

The decision to move forward on more drafting, consensus-building,  
and interventions without having addressed the process issues is a  
clear message: the concerns raised by Guru, Laina, and others last  
year are secondary to this group's activity.

The downplaying of our governance unfortunately echoes the failure of  
some of our other internet governance institutions ("we're doing the  
best we can", "we are open to any contributions"), and over the long  
term leaves the group vulnerable to some of the critiques we are  
making of others. The proverb about keeping one's own house in order  
applies. As mentioned last year I am happy to participate  
constructively in activities and discussions designed to address the  
issue, as I know many others would be. I'm getting tired of questions  
along this line being painted as counter-productive to more urgent  
"matters at hand", perhaps this discussion can be continued post-Geneva.

Regards

Danny


On 16/02/2006, at 5:54 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:


>
> The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective
> process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged
> elements of recent contributions.
>
> Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply  
> not
> true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to
> give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.
>
> I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this
> list in more polite and respectful way.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>>
>>





-- 
Danny Butt
db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200


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


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 18:35:16 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:35:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] Design framework for IGF
In-Reply-To: <a06230916c018a56d938b@10.59.1.9>
References: <a06230916c018a56d938b@10.59.1.9>
Message-ID: <954259bd0602151535o697f39bdv66808389240800a6@mail.gmail.com>

Dear David,

Interesting contribution. A few general remarks.

1) yes, fleshing out differences explictely early on in processes usually
allows for better communications later on. Diplomatic discourse works a lot
in the implicit, making understanding each other's positions more difficult.


Initial stage in dealing with an "issue of common concern or interest" is to
get all stakeholders to descibe their understanding of the issue from their
"point of view" (litterally from where they observe it). This does not
require them to relinquish whatever opinion they have but allows them to
integrate opther elements of a more global picture. Same object from a
different angle, or the traditional five blind men and the elephant story.

This initial process does provide a more complete common picture of what an
issue is about, and what the respective positions of actors are. This
provides a better starting point for further discussions.

2) Dialectic process. The alternance between standardization and innovation
phases is a dynamic mechanism worth refering to. In governance, you could
also consider a combination of two notions : "initiation" and "validation".

An broad right of initiative is essential to put issues early on the agenda.
The progressive constitution of interest groups, then more and more formal
working groups and drafting groups (as need arises) leads to a second phase
of validation / adoption of the results (report, recommendation, regimes
proposals, etc...) before they are implemented by the concerned
stakehollders.

This "organic", more biological-like approach (akin to the
activation-repression of genes expression) contrasts with the mechanical,
"checks and balances" approach of most existing governance mechanisms,
particularly representative democracy.

3) Starting up the process. In line with your comments on plenary and
program committee (informal/formal), the first meeting in Athens is an
opportunity to test and implement very open modalities and to
later formalize them into simple protocols; the next meeting and possible
intermediary ones relaunching the cycle in order for the Forum
to progressively get its final shape.

The process here could be the opposite of the lengthy (multi-year)
diplomatic negociations before the establishment of new international
organizations. The iterative approach here would be : move forward, test
modalities, identify the best ones, formalize them somewhat, then repeat the
process....

4) Microcosm. All these concepts are somewhat fractal, self-referential and,
yes, self-similar at different scales. We are establishing a framework
defining how activities can be set up, and the establishment of this
framework is, in itself, one of the activities it should allow.

Traditional political science makes a clear distinction between the
constitutional phase determining an institutional framework and the normal
legislative activities taking place afterwards within it. The US
constitution is 200 years old and the rare amendments are not adopted
through the normal legislative process, but through a special procedure.

But here, the initial definition of the framework (how the Forum is composed
and will function) and its modification on an ongoing basis will be obtained
through the normal procedures that the forum will use for its day-to-day
activities. This should be a typical example of a bootstrapping,
self-establishing process, without a clear Constitutional phase.

I hope these comments will not look too abstract. And for the moment, we
will have to focus on the concrete aspects of how to set up the first
meeting. But thanks for giving me the opportunity to put down some thoughts
I have carried for a long time.

Best

Bertrand


On 2/15/06, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> For those who may be interested, I have posted a piece on a framework
> for design of IGF.
>
>        http://davidallen.org/papers/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf
>
> (If a letter size version is helpful, substitute LTR for A4 in the URL.)
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060216/4fd6ffff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From apeake at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 19:21:20 2006
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:21:20 +0900
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <f31ae3560602151621i7b41f1e7p15a736ffa4c5c3f2@mail.gmail.com>

Jeanette, Jeremy: thank you. Very good statement. I think it reflects
what we've discussed, I can't think of anything to add that has been
broadly supported by the caucus before. Please read it if you get
chance.

Apologies for being slow to reply, too much travel at the moment.

Thanks,

Adam





On 2/15/06, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:
> Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential
> caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
>
> *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need
> further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.
>
> *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome too.
>
> Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps
> somebody already in Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
>
>
> •       Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending
> participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of
> dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
>
> •       Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
> Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
> Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
> communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
> barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
> countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet
> Governance.
>
> •       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to the
> participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> including governments, private sector, civil society and international
> organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
> to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such
> as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
>
> •       Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance should not
> be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness
> of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote
> participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable
> to attend in person.
>
> •       Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of the forum
> that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is
> expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making
> capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective
> working principle to enable high quality results.
>
> •       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics as it
> considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are
> cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
> competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be
> seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that
> promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
> and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
>
> •       Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing process
> with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should
> constitute just one element in this process.
>
> •       Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for
> the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
> considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
> governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
> should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
> of entrance visas.
>
> •       Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must take an
> open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership
> and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must
> publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
>
>
> II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
>
>
> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
> things, the Forum should:
>
> •       Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
> bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
> the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any
> existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
> expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
>
>        Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other
> institutions on matters under their purview;
>
>        Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> developing countries;
>
>        Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
>
> •       Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing
> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
>
> •       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> principles in Internet Governance processes.
>
>
> jeanette
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>
>


--
Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please
reply to  <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!

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


From db at dannybutt.net  Wed Feb 15 20:09:35 2006
From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:09:35 +1300
Subject: [governance] caucus infrastructure
Message-ID: <0D43C8AD-6F9D-463D-9065-3EAD00D5EA44@dannybutt.net>

I'm sure others on the list (not least cpsr) have hosting  
infrastructure they can make available, but I can offer Wiki hosting  
(MediaWiki) if people thought that would be easier for drafting.

Our company also has a multi-project account with Basecamp <http:// 
www.basecamphq.com>, an excellent project management tool that  
includes collaborative writing and versioning tools that are simple  
to use and would seem to be useful for the work of this group in  
setting milestones, messages, etc. I'd be happy to make a project on  
there available as well, although I don't know if it is compatible  
with text-only browsers.

Regards

Danny


-- 
Danny Butt
db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200


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


From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca  Wed Feb 15 21:18:01 2006
From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:18:01 -0500
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more
 progressiveelements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <D9758B0E-1331-482D-BFE0-5E2D92B91A51@dannybutt.net>
Message-ID: <002301c6329f$36a80e10$0201a8c0@jgsnotebook>

Danny,

This strikes me as a well thought-out critique as well as an eloquent
synthesis of the big issues that have been raised in regards to the IG
caucus over the last few months and must be continue to be  raised in
regards to the notion of civil society participation in governance writ
large. 

As such, I neither think that it is appropriate to respond to it
defensively, nor to brush it aside. What you have written here is
fundamental. I don't have any answers to the points you have raised
either. I also have no doubt that everyone appreciates your offer to
make a wiki for drafting to perhaps contribute to helping to solve the
some of the  problems you are underlining.

Is this statement on the IGF based on a formal agreed upon set of
internal processes? No. Is it entirely representative and democratic?
No. I don't think that means that it is not based on a some sort of
"collective process of thinking" though.

First of all, there is a big difference between trying to rubber stamp
one's own agenda with the caucus seal of approval and making a good
faith attempt to synthesize the opinions of its members.

I am not saying the later could not and does not happen in this caucus,
but, in the parts of this document that I worked on, I carefully
reviewed the discussion on the listserve to synthesize the various
opinions that had been voiced about the location issue and drew directly
on other sources such as the APC text on capacity building written by
Adam, David Souter and Karen for some of the other sections.

Jeanette can speak for herself but, she did say she was working for a
list her and Adam had been keeping about comments made by others and not
on her own ideas. 

Secondly, informal, unrepresentative, totally ad-hoc and questionably
legitimate though it may be, the process of collective thinking is going
on right now- anyone can express their displeasure or support for the
words that were on the first version of the paper. Parminder and others
did. Yes the first draft might set the agenda for discussion, but there
is a discussion.

It could be much, much better, but it is nonetheless "collective
thinking". What it isn't is accountable to a formal and accepted process
and, I agree with you that we need to pick back up the discussion of
how to make it more so.

The ultimate problem becomes that someone has to do the first draft of
this in order to 'make do', and that we haven't agreed on who that
person is, why they are that person and how they get to that point.

So, it is surely a cop-out to say that 'we have to make do'- we
shouldn't accept that as a rationale, but at the same time until we
figure out how to organize our process better there is a burden on
someone to take the initiative. 

The "perception from some that this suits a particular group with a
shared history and a  relatively shared culture and assumptions" is
unfortunate, and clearly frustrating for everyone. 

But, I think one thing that we can all agree on in regards to this
question is that-  if there is a clique at the middle of this caucus-
despite being a Western academic like some of the other people in the
caucus, I for one have certainly not been invited to join it and
Jeanette was more than happy to delegate some of the drafting to me.

In truth, Adam and Jeanette's eagerness to get out of the position where
they are the ones who are forced to start the 'making do' process should
indicate to us that this perception is somewhat separate from the issues
in our processes of collective thinking. 

I do think we need to recognize that there are very different interests,
backgrounds, constituencies and perspectives at work in this caucus. 

So, I for one second Danny's appeal to pick back up the caucus process
discussion that was started in Tunis and would very much like to see
those different perspectives involved and engaged in that process. 

-JS


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=
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: February 15, 2006 4:19 PM
To: Governance Caucus
Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the
more progressiveelements of IGF functions ommitted

I support the essence of Parminder's comments - with respect for the  
work people are doing I think it's not true that it "reflects a  
collective process of thinking" in a meaningful way, because there  
are very different levels of involvement and investment in the process.

This is the "governance of CS caucus" issue that we discussed last  
year (and reached no agreement on from memory). Until there is  
progress on this the status quo will remain, and the perception from  
some that this suits a particular group with a shared history and a  
relatively shared culture and assumptions will also remain.

The decision to move forward on more drafting, consensus-building,  
and interventions without having addressed the process issues is a  
clear message: the concerns raised by Guru, Laina, and others last  
year are secondary to this group's activity.

The downplaying of our governance unfortunately echoes the failure of  
some of our other internet governance institutions ("we're doing the  
best we can", "we are open to any contributions"), and over the long  
term leaves the group vulnerable to some of the critiques we are  
making of others. The proverb about keeping one's own house in order  
applies. As mentioned last year I am happy to participate  
constructively in activities and discussions designed to address the  
issue, as I know many others would be. I'm getting tired of questions  
along this line being painted as counter-productive to more urgent  
"matters at hand", perhaps this discussion can be continued post-Geneva.

Regards

Danny


On 16/02/2006, at 5:54 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:


>
> The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective
> process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged
> elements of recent contributions.
>
> Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply  
> not
> true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to
> give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.
>
> I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this
> list in more polite and respectful way.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>>
>>





-- 
Danny Butt
db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200


_______________________________________________
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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Wed Feb 15 21:48:40 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:48:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] caucus infrastructure
In-Reply-To: <0D43C8AD-6F9D-463D-9065-3EAD00D5EA44@dannybutt.net>
References: <0D43C8AD-6F9D-463D-9065-3EAD00D5EA44@dannybutt.net>
Message-ID: <43F3E808.7080309@lists.privaterra.org>

Danny:

a wiki , i think would be a good tool for the caucus to me able to use 
to draft document for the meeting being held this week.

Until a more permanent solution can be agreed to - might you be find 
with setting up a space?

regards

Robert

Danny Butt wrote:
> I'm sure others on the list (not least cpsr) have hosting  
> infrastructure they can make available, but I can offer Wiki hosting  
> (MediaWiki) if people thought that would be easier for drafting.
>
> Our company also has a multi-project account with Basecamp <http:// 
> www.basecamphq.com>, an excellent project management tool that  
> includes collaborative writing and versioning tools that are simple  
> to use and would seem to be useful for the work of this group in  
> setting milestones, messages, etc. I'd be happy to make a project on  
> there available as well, although I don't know if it is compatible  
> with text-only browsers.
>
> Regards
>
> Danny
>
>
>   

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


From jovank at diplomacy.edu  Wed Feb 15 23:10:26 2006
From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:10:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] The Malta Discussion on Internet Governance - Summary
	of the Conference
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1514.1140056097.481.governance@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <MDAEMON-F200602160510.AA1025808md50000002398@diplomacy.edu>

Here is the link to the Summary of the Internet Governance Conference
(Malta, 10-12 February 2006)

http://www.diplomacy.edu/Conferences/IG/presentations/Conference_Report.pdf

Regards, Jovan




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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Thu Feb 16 01:49:32 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:49:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <A0E19BF31237DE4A9B1FF1E122FAC13A16302B63@ADMCLUSTER.njitdm.campus.njit.edu>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEDGGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

Karen and I have gone around on this a bit since WGIG.  While it is of
course an issue of paramount importance, I don't see access as an IG issue,
there are no applicable international shared rule systems, it's a function
of heterogeneous and uncoordinated national policies and corporate
decisions.  Accordingly, it hasn't really been treated as such in WGIG/WSIS.
Of course, one could say there should be international rules, but that's
different, and I would think there is an obligation to say just what such
rules might consist of.   I know Milton agrees with me and think some others
did when this came up previously. There also arguably would be some danger
of implying that international telecom rules, such as the ITU's treaty
instruments, that are supposed to encourage telephone access, apply to the
Internet.   Clearly it's an issue meriting further consideration and people
can reasonably disagree on it.  We can talk about this in our drafting
meeting today, but I don't think we'll reach a hard consensus on the point
in the time available.  Maybe there's some mention that could be worked out
to connect with and support APC's statement without declaring full stop that
the caucus all agrees this is an IG issue per se.

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Gurstein, Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:49 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
>
>
> As I expected, but a bit earlier than I assumed, mission creep
> for the IGF has already been initiated and by CS rather than by
> any of the other actors.
>
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Karen and Parminder that
> "access" (and thus "development") issues should be discussed at
> the IGF--if not there, where; and of course, it is difficult to
> distinguish issues of "access" and "capacity building" from
> "development" (and I guess that then means a not too big a lurch
> over into overall issues of ICT4D, yes?)...
>
> BUT, wasn't the division of responsibility to have been Internet
> Governance/Policy with the IGF and ICT4D with the Global Alliance
> (whose gestation has been even more lengthy and wrapped in
> shrouds of UN intrigue--an "extensive consultation",
> hmmm...--than the IGF...
>
> Again, maybe it would be best to have all the issues addressed in
> the IGF and leave the GA to moulder with the other "high level
> but participative UN blah blah's", but if that is the case, then
> the responsibilities that flow from that, and for everyone
> including (or especially) CS folks to figure out and make
> representations around all the issues of inclusion,
> "representivity", support mechanisms for participation, a
> possible role in direct policy development and even project
> implementation etc.etc. (which flows more or less directly from
> including the ICT4D "mandate") rears its head more or less immediately.
>
> That is, CS like everyone else can't have it both ways--having
> all the issues of importance (to the various components of CS) on
> the table in the IGF, without at the same time recognizing that
> some of those issues have much much broader constituencies and
> much more immediate physical impacts on folks on the ground than
> the rather more rarified (and dare I say "virtual") issues of
> things like spam and the allocations of responsibilities within
> the DNS, and that this being the case, maintaining the IGF as a
> rather exclusive talk shop for Internet (and travel funded)
> cognoscenti isn't going to (ahem) fly.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
> Sent: February 15, 2006 10:41 AM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann; Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
>
>
> hi
>
> i've looked over very quickly and can support
> everything here - we would have additional points
> to make, or would emphasize some points more than
> others, but can do so in a separate intervention.
>
> the two points i would add, or, think are missing
> - are the importance of a rights based approach
> to the forum (with specific reference to privacy
> and freedom of expression) and the importance of
> an overriding development orientation to the work
> of the IGF (i don't see any reference to
> developing country priorities in this text,
> excepting that of capacity building and
> participation - which are of course important,
> but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)
>
> anyway, if this is too difficult - i can raise in our intervention..
>
> APC will post it's survey response today, very
> late.. and i'll post a copy here..
>
> In some ways, we are still thinking, so the
> responses are not necessarily final final positions or perspectives ..
>
> karen
>
> At 22:48 14/02/2006, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual
> >very late, a potential caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> >
> >*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or
> >which parts need further editing or should be
> >deleted because they are controversial.
> >
> >*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome
> >too.
> >
> >Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good
> >if somebody - perhaps somebody already in
> >Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> >
> >
> >*       Added Value: The goal of the forum is to
> >add value to the existing institutional
> >arrangements relevant to Internet governance by
> >extending participation to a broader community
> >and by improving the quality of dialogue,
> >discussion and development in this field.
> >
> >*       Capacity-building: The IGF must
> >contribute to building capacity in Internet
> >governance amongst all stakeholders directly
> >engaged in Internet Governance and ICT policy
> >issues as well as within the wider communities
> >affected by them. The IGF must overcome the
> >specific barriers to effective participation, in
> >particular from developing countries, found in
> >the current institutional structures of Internet Governance.
> >
> >*       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness:
> >The forum must be open to the participation of
> >all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> >including governments, private sector, civil
> >society and international organizations. The
> >multi-stakeholder approach should not only be
> >applied to the forum but to all bodies and
> >processes related to the forum such as the
> >secretariat and a potential program committee.
> >
> >*       Inclusiveness and remote participation:
> >Physical attendance should not be required for
> >participation. In order to strengthen the
> >inclusiveness of its collaboration, the forum
> >should integrate new forms of remote
> >participation to enable contributions from
> >stakeholders who are unable to attend in person.
> >
> >*       Equality of participation: It is vital
> >to the legitimacy of the forum that all
> >stakeholders participate on an equal basis.
> >Since the forum is expected to act as a
> >facilitating body without binding decision
> >making capacity, equal footing for all
> >participants is the most effective working
> >principle to enable high quality results.
> >
> >*       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be
> >free to choose its topics as it considers
> >appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet
> >Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch
> >upon the responsibilities and competences of
> >existing organizations. However, the forum
> >should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF
> >will function as a facilitator that promotes
> >enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies
> >by generating and diffusing "best-practice" and
> >"lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> >
> >*       Forum as process: The forum should be
> >designed as an ongoing process with most of its
> >work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> >thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to
> >face meetings should constitute just one element in this process.
> >
> >*       Accessible location: The highest
> >priority in choosing locations for the forum
> >should be accessibility to all potential
> >participants. In considering perspective
> >locations issues such as: proximity to
> >governmental missions and the local hotel and
> >transit infrastructure should be balanced with
> >concerns about travel costs and the availability of entrance visas.
> >
> >*       Transparency: For the sake of its
> >legitimacy, the forum must take an open and
> >transparent approach to its structure,
> >procedures, membership and to all of its
> >deliberations and recommendations. The forum
> >must publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> >
> >
> >II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> >
> >
> >The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
> >calls on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to
> >play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> >relation to existing Internet governance
> >mechanisms.  Among other things, the Forum should:
> >
> >*       Facilitate the exchange of information
> >and best practices between bodies dealing with
> >different international public policies
> >regarding the Internet and discuss issues that
> >do not fall within the scope of any existing
> >body. In this regard the Forum should make full
> >use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical
> communities;
> >
> >ï'§     Interface: with appropriate
> >inter-governmental organizations and other
> >institutions on matters under their purview;
> >
> >ï'§     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of
> >stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet
> >Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
> >
> >ï'§     Identify emerging issues, bring them to
> >the attention of the relevant bodies and the
> >general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
> >
> >*       Contribute to capacity-building for
> >Internet Governance in developing countries,
> >drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> >
> >*       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis,
> >the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.
> >
> >
> >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
>


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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Thu Feb 16 02:29:49 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:29:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <43F35CC8.4090802@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOGEDHGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi Parminder,

> > However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> > less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> > Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> > three most important points of this para
> >  
> > So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> > functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> > far the most important ones ???

As Jeanette says, she lifted a piece of text from the abstract of my Malta presentation on Karen's suggestion.  The purpose of that piece of text was to underscore that the Tunis Agenda establishes a clear mandate for the IGF to work closely with and play a catalytic role in relation to existing governance mechanisms, not least with respect to the application of the WSIS principles.  I think this is a point of paramount importance precisely because, from a public interest standpoint, one would want the forum to help open up debate on the non-transparent, non-inclusive nature of some governance mechanisms, and to encourage change, but this part of the mandate---which is actually quite elaborate in the Agenda---is being systematically ignored because the more powerful states and the private sector/ISOC maintain that the IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything "being done elsewhere."  Hence the proposals on what, substantively, the forum might actually do are being spun toward what are deemed to be comparatively uncontroversial issues like spam and cybersecurity (that anyone could think these uncontroversial, especially the latter, reflects a complete nonrecognition of progressive positions, but whatever); read the submissions on the IGF site and this is clear.  We could end up with the forum being a once a year shebang where we get together and talk about a discreet topic and then go home, rather than being an ongoing process that inter alia fosters open dialogue on the democratization of IG generally.

Anyway, that's why there was a piece of the Tunis Agenda in the text Jeanette circulated.  No explanatory text was included as to why it was there because I didn't have time to write anything yesterday; you're reacting to an in process, choppy process of dumping stuff in to be massaged and clarified later.  So she was not trying to take anything off the table or seeking to imply

> > more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> > arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 

Hopefully this clarifies the intentionality, or lack thereof.  

Two issues follow:

1.  I think it's important that we do have some text in the statement saying that we take seriously the Tunis mandate for the IGF to promote transparency and inclusion in extant arrangements, inter alia by assessing their conformity with the WSIS principles.  I would think you agree with this, no?  It's certainly consistent with caucus and CS positions more generally throughout the process.  Personally, I would like to see the IGF establish a working group on Application of the WSIS Principles, since the secretariat will not have the capacity or mandate to do this (status quo forces will ensure that), and it's not the kind of function that can be performed by a once a year big meeting alone.  

Would people be amenable to including a call for this in the caucus text?  If so, we can do it today.  Either way, I may try to write and submit a more elaborate personal statement on the point, if I'm able to focus while listening to the discussion.

2.  Regarding this point,

> > With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> > public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> > Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to 
> critical 
> > Internet resources……

I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here saying the IGF should not discuss policy issues.  On the second, per my reply to Michael,  affordability and access have not been treated as IG issues and I don't think we could get consensus amongst ourselves on the matter, which is NOT to say that nobody cares about these issues, it's just a question of in which context are they best addressed.  Again, we could certainly fudge the issue by saying we think these are key concerns with which IG policies should be consistent, but that's different.  And of course, you, APC, and others who feel that these manifestly are IG issues can submit statements to that effect.  I'm not sure what you mean by the third, but am guessing you refer to the enhanced cooperation on oversight issues.  I guarantee that the US-UK-Canada-Australia and private sector/ISOC will oppose that being in the forum, and as such it probably won't happen, but personally I would be happy to have the caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this is discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.  

We need some very quick dialogue on this point and guidance for today's drafting.  

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:55 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
> Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more
> progressive elements of IGF functions ommitted
> 
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> I have mentioned weeks ago that the caucus should think about a 
> statement for the Geneva consultation. I got no response, and nobody 
> drafted anything. This is why I decided yesterday to put together a list 
> of principles regarding the forum; principles I assume the caucus finds 
> relevant.
> 
> Karen suggested that I include parts of Bill's Malta presentation. She 
> attached that presentation so that everybody on this list could read it.
> Nobody objected, so Jeremy and I added parts of Bill's presentation. As 
> far as I am concerned, we can drop the second part or replace it by new 
> language.
> 
> The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective 
> process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged 
> elements of recent contributions.
> 
> Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply not 
> true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to 
> give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.
> 
> I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this 
> list in more polite and respectful way.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Jeanette,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I first read only part 1 of the submission, and thought its first point 
> > – ‘added value’ - was un-necessarily restrictive.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > To say
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> > The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> > 
> > institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance>>>
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > is to give, more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> > arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 
> > WSIS CS and of most other participants at WSIS (especially when the 
> > tunis agenda uses more substantive language – ‘build on the existing 
> > structures of IG’). So, I wanted to take this point out and add 
> one on – 
> > ‘domain and competence’ of IGF taking points from many submissions we 
> > have made on this point.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity building point 
> at number 
> > 2 and wanted to move it down. I also had some problems with the part of 
> > the point on 'thematic autonomy' where the IGF function was made 
> > un-necessarily restrictive by mentioning only diffusing 'best 
> practises' 
> > etc. We know we have always meant the IGF to have much greater 
> functions.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I thought these omissions (from my point of view) were minor, and that 
> > they came from different emphasis on different points - most of which 
> > were, in their essence, shared among us.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> > less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> > Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> > three most important points of this para
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > a)                 Discuss public policy issues related to key elements 
> > of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, 
> > robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > e)       Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> > accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> > developing world;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > j)         Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical Internet 
> > resources;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> > functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> > far the most important ones ???
> > 
> > With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> > public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> > Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to 
> critical 
> > Internet resources……
> > 
> > And I cant take it to be un-intended omission, because all your listed 
> > points come from this para 72 (quoted below), so you CHOSE not to list 
> > these three points….
> > 
> > I have some very basic problem with the politics that inform these 
> > omissions. I have tried to be constructive and all in my engagements on 
> > this list – but at this point I have no option but to state the matters 
> > in the strong terms that I have done here.
> > 
> > I think it is time IG caucus decided at least its broad 
> political stands 
> > on the IG issues, within which the debate can take place. If CS 
> is going 
> > to seek great dilution (from a progressive standpoint - whatever it may 
> > mean, but such terms are generally associated with CS) of commitments 
> > already made by governments in official summit docs rather than trying 
> > to take things further ahead, I don’t see the point in being with such 
> > an CS engagement at all. I know the multi-stakeholder and CS 
> > participations points are still there – but if these are the directions 
> > that CS participation is going to take, Id rather be represented by my 
> > country’s government’s nominee.  
> > 
> > regards
> > 
> > Parminder
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I am quoting para 72 of Tunis agenda for anyone to make their 
> > conclusions vis a vis clear specific exclusions mentioned above 
> from the 
> > list submitted in the proposed submission on behalf of the IG caucus.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > * Para 72;  We ask the UN Secretary-General *, in an open and inclusive 
> > process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting 
> of the new 
> > forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the /Internet 
> > Governance Forum/ (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > * a)       *Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of 
> > Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
> > security, stability and development of the Internet;
> > 
> > * b)       *Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different 
> > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and 
> > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body ;
> > 
> > * c)       *Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations 
> > and other institutions on matters under their purview;
> > 
> > * d)       *Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, 
> > and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, 
> > scientific and technical communities;
> > 
> > * e)       *Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> > accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> > developing world;
> > 
> > * f)        *Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in 
> > existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly 
> > those from developing countries;
> > 
> > * g)       *Identify emerging issues, bring them to the 
> attention of the 
> > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> > recommendations;
> > 
> > * h)       *Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in 
> > developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and 
> > expertise;
> > 
> > * i)         *Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the 
> embodiment of 
> > WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;
> > 
> > * j)         *Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical 
> > Internet resources;
> > 
> > * k)      *Help to find solutions to the issues arising from 
> the use and 
> > misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
> > 
> > * l)         *Publish its proceedings.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > ________________________________________________
> > 
> > Parminder Jeet Singh
> > 
> > IT for Change
> > 
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > 
> > 91-80-26654134
> > 
> > www.ITforChange.net
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:19 AM
> > To: Governance Caucus
> > Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential
> > 
> > caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need
> > 
> > further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are 
> welcome too.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps
> > 
> > somebody already in Geneva ? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> > 
> > institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending
> > 
> > participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of
> > 
> > dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
> > 
> > Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
> > 
> > Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
> > 
> > communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
> > 
> > barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
> > 
> > countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet
> > 
> > Governance.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must 
> be open to 
> > the
> > 
> > participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> > 
> > including governments, private sector, civil society and international
> > 
> > organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
> > 
> > to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such
> > 
> > as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical 
> attendance should 
> > not
> > 
> > be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness
> > 
> > of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote
> > 
> > participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable
> > 
> > to attend in person.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy 
> of the forum
> > 
> > that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is
> > 
> > expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making
> > 
> > capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective
> > 
> > working principle to enable high quality results.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its 
> topics as it
> > 
> > considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are
> > 
> > cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
> > 
> > competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be
> > 
> > seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that
> > 
> > promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
> > 
> > and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an 
> ongoing process
> > 
> > with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> > 
> > thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should
> > 
> > constitute just one element in this process.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing 
> locations for
> > 
> > the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
> > 
> > considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
> > 
> > governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
> > 
> > should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
> > 
> > of entrance visas.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum 
> must take an
> > 
> > open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership
> > 
> > and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must
> > 
> > publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
> > 
> > Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> > 
> > relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
> > 
> > things, the Forum should:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
> > 
> > bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
> > 
> > the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any
> > 
> > existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
> > 
> > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and 
> > other
> > 
> > institutions on matters under their purview;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> > 
> > and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> > 
> > developing countries;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of 
> the relevant
> > 
> > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> > recommendations;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance 
> in developing
> > 
> > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> > 
> > principles in Internet Governance processes.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Thu Feb 16 04:35:56 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:35:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] EU Troika Meeting tomorrow
Message-ID: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de>

Hi, the EU Troika suggests a meeting with civil society tomorrow at 1, 
room 26. I hope people can make it. I don't think it is restricted to 
European civil soc members. (Even Milton, who suspects not to be part of 
the incrowd can attend.)
Pls let me know as soon as possible in case there is a time conflict so 
that we can reschedule it.

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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Thu Feb 16 05:20:39 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:20:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
 elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOGEDHGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOGEDHGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <43F451F7.4010302@wz-berlin.de>




> 
> I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here
> saying the IGF should not discuss policy issues. 

Of course not.

On the second, per
> my reply to Michael,  affordability and access have not been treated
> as IG issues and I don't think we could get consensus amongst
> ourselves on the matter, which is NOT to say that nobody cares about
> these issues, it's just a question of in which context are they best
> addressed.  Again, we could certainly fudge the issue by saying we
> think these are key concerns with which IG policies should be
> consistent, but that's different. 

I don't see why we would not want issues of access to be included. 
Aren't these cross cutting issues too?

  And of course, you, APC, and
> others who feel that these manifestly are IG issues can submit
> statements to that effect.  I'm not sure what you mean by the third,
> but am guessing you refer to the enhanced cooperation on oversight
> issues.  I guarantee that the US-UK-Canada-Australia and private
> sector/ISOC will oppose that being in the forum, and as such it
> probably won't happen, but personally I would be happy to have the
> caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this is
> discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.

I would like us to address this point if we can get consensus on it. I 
was considering to add a sentence to the para on agenda setting or 
thematic autonomy to mention the enhanced cooperation. I suspected 
though that we wouldn't have consensus on this issue. This is why I 
dropped it.

jeanette
> 
> We need some very quick dialogue on this point and guidance for
> today's drafting.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette
>> Hofmann Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:55 PM To: Parminder 
>> Cc: 'Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] intervention
>> draft - why are the more progressive elements of IGF functions
>> ommitted
>> 
>> 
>> Parminder,
>> 
>> I have mentioned weeks ago that the caucus should think about a 
>> statement for the Geneva consultation. I got no response, and
>> nobody drafted anything. This is why I decided yesterday to put
>> together a list of principles regarding the forum; principles I
>> assume the caucus finds relevant.
>> 
>> Karen suggested that I include parts of Bill's Malta presentation.
>> She attached that presentation so that everybody on this list could
>> read it. Nobody objected, so Jeremy and I added parts of Bill's
>> presentation. As far as I am concerned, we can drop the second part
>> or replace it by new language.
>> 
>> The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a
>> collective process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I
>> merely merged elements of recent contributions.
>> 
>> Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply
>> not true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't
>> mean to give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.
>> 
>> I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on
>> this list in more polite and respectful way.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> Parminder wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Jeanette,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I first read only part 1 of the submission, and thought its first
>>> point – ‘added value’ - was un-necessarily restrictive.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> To say
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
>>> 
>>> institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> is to give, more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
>>> arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of
>>> general WSIS CS and of most other participants at WSIS
>>> (especially when the tunis agenda uses more substantive language
>>> – ‘build on the existing structures of IG’). So, I wanted to take
>>> this point out and add
>> 
>> one on –
>> 
>>> ‘domain and competence’ of IGF taking points from many
>>> submissions we have made on this point.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity building point
>> 
>> at number
>> 
>>> 2 and wanted to move it down. I also had some problems with the
>>> part of the point on 'thematic autonomy' where the IGF function
>>> was made un-necessarily restrictive by mentioning only diffusing
>>> 'best
>> 
>> practises'
>> 
>>> etc. We know we have always meant the IGF to have much greater
>> 
>> functions.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I thought these omissions (from my point of view) were minor, and
>>> that they came from different emphasis on different points - most
>>> of which were, in their essence, shared among us.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was
>>> nothing less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are
>>> taken from the Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course
>>> deliberate) omission of the three most important points of this
>>> para
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> a)                 Discuss public policy issues related to key
>>> elements of Internet Governance in order to foster the
>>> sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development
>>> of the Internet;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> e)       Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
>>> accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in
>>> the developing world;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> j)         Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical
>>> Internet resources;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted
>>> as the functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others
>>> think are by far the most important ones ???
>>> 
>>> With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to
>>> discuss public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and
>>> access of Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues
>>> related to
>> 
>> critical
>> 
>>> Internet resources……
>>> 
>>> And I cant take it to be un-intended omission, because all your
>>> listed points come from this para 72 (quoted below), so you CHOSE
>>> not to list these three points….
>>> 
>>> I have some very basic problem with the politics that inform
>>> these omissions. I have tried to be constructive and all in my
>>> engagements on this list – but at this point I have no option but
>>> to state the matters in the strong terms that I have done here.
>>> 
>>> I think it is time IG caucus decided at least its broad
>> 
>> political stands
>> 
>>> on the IG issues, within which the debate can take place. If CS
>> 
>> is going
>> 
>>> to seek great dilution (from a progressive standpoint - whatever
>>> it may mean, but such terms are generally associated with CS) of
>>> commitments already made by governments in official summit docs
>>> rather than trying to take things further ahead, I don’t see the
>>> point in being with such an CS engagement at all. I know the
>>> multi-stakeholder and CS participations points are still there –
>>> but if these are the directions that CS participation is going to
>>> take, Id rather be represented by my country’s government’s
>>> nominee.
>>> 
>>> regards
>>> 
>>> Parminder
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am quoting para 72 of Tunis agenda for anyone to make their 
>>> conclusions vis a vis clear specific exclusions mentioned above
>> 
>> from the
>> 
>>> list submitted in the proposed submission on behalf of the IG
>>> caucus.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> * Para 72;  We ask the UN Secretary-General *, in an open and
>>> inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a
>>> meeting
>> 
>> of the new
>> 
>>> forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the /Internet
>>>  Governance Forum/ (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> * a)       *Discuss public policy issues related to key elements
>>> of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability,
>>> robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;
>>> 
>>> * b)       *Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with
>>> different cross-cutting international public policies regarding
>>> the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope
>>> of any existing body ;
>>> 
>>> * c)       *Interface with appropriate inter-governmental
>>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their
>>> purview;
>>> 
>>> * d)       *Facilitate the exchange of information and best
>>> practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of
>>> the academic, scientific and technical communities;
>>> 
>>> * e)       *Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means
>>> to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet
>>> in the developing world;
>>> 
>>> * f)        *Strengthen and enhance the engagement of
>>> stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet Governance
>>> mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
>>> 
>>> * g)       *Identify emerging issues, bring them to the
>> 
>> attention of the
>> 
>>> relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate,
>>> make recommendations;
>>> 
>>> * h)       *Contribute to capacity-building for Internet
>>> Governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local
>>> sources of knowledge and expertise;
>>> 
>>> * i)         *Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the
>> 
>> embodiment of
>> 
>>> WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;
>>> 
>>> * j)         *Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical
>>>  Internet resources;
>>> 
>>> * k)      *Help to find solutions to the issues arising from
>> 
>> the use and
>> 
>>> misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
>>> 
>>> * l)         *Publish its proceedings.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>>> 
>>> IT for Change
>>> 
>>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>>> 
>>> 91-80-26654134
>>> 
>>> www.ITforChange.net
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>> governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
>>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette
>>> Hofmann Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:19 AM To: Governance
>>> Caucus Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for
>>> Geneva
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a
>>> potential
>>> 
>>> caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need
>>> 
>>> 
>>> further editing or should be deleted because they are
>>> controversial.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are
>> 
>> welcome too.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody -
>>> perhaps
>>> 
>>> somebody already in Geneva ? Bill? - took over the editing
>>> function.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the
>>> existing
>>> 
>>> institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by
>>> extending
>>> 
>>> participation to a broader community and by improving the quality
>>> of
>>> 
>>> dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building
>>> capacity in
>>> 
>>> Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
>>> 
>>> Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the
>>> wider
>>> 
>>> communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
>>> 
>>> barriers to effective participation, in particular from
>>> developing
>>> 
>>> countries, found in the current institutional structures of
>>> Internet
>>> 
>>> Governance.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must
>> 
>> be open to
>> 
>>> the
>>> 
>>> participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
>>> 
>>> 
>>> including governments, private sector, civil society and
>>> international
>>> 
>>> organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be
>>> applied
>>> 
>>> to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum
>>> such
>>> 
>>> as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical
>> 
>> attendance should
>> 
>>> not
>>> 
>>> be required for participation. In order to strengthen the
>>> inclusiveness
>>> 
>>> of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of
>>> remote
>>> 
>>> participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are
>>> unable
>>> 
>>> to attend in person.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy
>> 
>> of the forum
>> 
>>> that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the
>>> forum is
>>> 
>>> expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision
>>> making
>>> 
>>> capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most
>>> effective
>>> 
>>> working principle to enable high quality results.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its
>> 
>> topics as it
>> 
>>> considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet
>>> Governance are
>>> 
>>> cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
>>> 
>>> competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should
>>> not be
>>> 
>>> seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator
>>> that
>>> 
>>> promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by
>>> generating
>>> 
>>> and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of
>>> knowledge.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an
>> 
>> ongoing process
>> 
>>> with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller
>>> 
>>> 
>>> thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings
>>> should
>>> 
>>> constitute just one element in this process.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing
>> 
>> locations for
>> 
>>> the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants.
>>> In
>>> 
>>> considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
>>> 
>>> governmental missions and the local hotel and transit
>>> infrastructure
>>> 
>>> should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the
>>> availability
>>> 
>>> of entrance visas.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum
>> 
>> must take an
>> 
>>> open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures,
>>> membership
>>> 
>>> and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum
>>> must
>>> 
>>> publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the
>>> Internet
>>> 
>>> Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role
>>> in
>>> 
>>> relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
>>> 
>>> 
>>> things, the Forum should:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices
>>> between
>>> 
>>> bodies dealing with different international public policies
>>> regarding
>>> 
>>> the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope
>>> of any
>>> 
>>> existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of
>>> the
>>> 
>>> expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> §     Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental
>>> organizations and other
>>> 
>>> institutions on matters under their purview;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> §     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in
>>> existing
>>> 
>>> and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those
>>> from
>>> 
>>> developing countries;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> §     Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of
>> 
>> the relevant
>> 
>>> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
>>> recommendations;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance
>> 
>> in developing
>> 
>>> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and
>>> expertise;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> •     Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of
>>> WSIS
>>> 
>>> principles in Internet Governance processes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Feb 16 06:23:12 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:23:12 -0300
Subject: [governance] EU Troika Meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200602160823.AA23120039@rits.org.br>

OK with me, Jeanette. Nothing scheduled for the 17th at 1 PM.

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>
To: "'Governance Caucus'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:35:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] EU Troika Meeting tomorrow

> Hi, the EU Troika suggests a meeting with civil society tomorrow at
> 1, 
> room 26. I hope people can make it. I don't think it is restricted to
> European civil soc members. (Even Milton, who suspects not to be part
> of 
> the incrowd can attend.)
> Pls let me know as soon as possible in case there is a time conflict
> so 
> that we can reschedule it.
> 
> 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


From apeake at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 05:34:46 2006
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:34:46 +0900
Subject: [governance] conference coordination (Re: draft for a caucus
	intervention for Geneva)
Message-ID: <f31ae3560602160234t6b647efcu2970a26c3a8279e7@mail.gmail.com>

This discussion is making pretty clear to me that I don't have time to
continue as a coordinator of the caucus. I haven't had time time to
contribute anything leading up to IG forum meeting, and won't have
time for the next couple of weeks to do anything for the caucus.

I am stepping down.  As of now.

Would be great if someone would offer to help coordinate things while
we agree on how to continue (or wind down?) the caucus.

Thanks,

Adam

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 16 05:36:33 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:06:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOGEDHGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <200602161033.k1GAXcpk073302@trout.cpsr.org>


Hi Bill, 

>> I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here
saying the IGF should not discuss policy issues.  >>>

I had clearly stated the logic behind what I said. The 6 points in
Jeanette's proposal (that, as you say, came from your Malta submission) are
lifted ad verbatim from the points in para 72 of tunis agenda. So, not to
pick the first point in this para which speaks of IF as a place for Internet
related public policy discussion, and the other two points on access to
Internet, and taking up issues related to critical Internet resources, is
quite glaring. 

And neither her nor your email explains how these 3 most important issues
were not picked, and other 6 picked. 

>> >>>>I think this is a point of paramount importance precisely because,
from a public interest standpoint, one would want the forum to help open up
debate on the non-transparent, non-inclusive nature of some governance
mechanisms, and to encourage change, but this part of the mandate---which is
actually quite elaborate in the Agenda---is being systematically ignored
because the more powerful states and the private sector/ISOC maintain that
the IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything "being done elsewhere."
>>>>>>


The same most powerful states and the private sector want to keep broad
public policy discussion, access, and critical resources issues out.... And
CS's responsibility to keep insisting on keeping them in - and mentioning
them everytime - becomes even more important. 

>>>> On the second, per my reply to Michael,  affordability and access have
not been treated as IG issues and I don't think we could get consensus
amongst ourselves on the matter, which is NOT to say that nobody cares about
these issues, it's just a question of in which context are they best
addressed.>>>>>

You write in your reply to email to Michael that access has not been treated
as an access issue in WGIG/WSIS. This is not true - inter-connections costs
are mentioned both in WGIG and tunis docs, and point 72 e of tunis agenda
clearly mentions issues regarding access to be part of IGF mandate. 

And I cant see why you and others wont see access issues as at least
possibly to be IG issues - we shd know that Internet is still going to
evolve - and all kinds of efforts are on to evolve it in directions of
increased commercialization. So, to put considerations of access issues in
IGF's mandate - when we all agree that it should be wider than narrow -
should hurt no one. And for me even domain name multilingualaism and content
related IPR issues that have clear IG connections are access issues (access
is not only infrastructural access). So if IGF has an mandate to look at
every issues from an access and affordability point of view as well - I cant
understand what could be anyone's objection to it. (as they say in feminist
literature - everything needs to be seen through a gender lens - if you are
seeing it so, you will find the gender elements in practically everything.
And if you don’t want to see, you wont.)

>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by the third, but am guessing you refer to
the enhanced cooperation on oversight issues.  I guarantee that the
US-UK-Canada-Australia and private sector/ISOC will oppose that being in the
forum, and as such it probably won't happen, but personally I would be happy
to have the caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this
is discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.  >>>>

But the third - the exclusion of point on critical internet resources - I
mean simply that para 72 clearly puts it in IGF's mandate to discuss
' issues relating to critical Internet resources'. So why are we - CS -
ignoring it. I cant see how US UK and others are going to oppose it because
they signed on the document. The issue is - what we - the CS - have to say
about it. Are we so mindful of US and UK opposing it that we also let it
slip from our agenda - even when it is already an agreed commitment - and
what is needed now from the CS side is to hold governments to their
commitment. 

I am sorry Bill, but even with your detailed explanation I am unable to
understand what direction - and what principles and politics - is the IG
caucus submission to the IGF consultation taking. 

Regards

Parminder 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 1:00 PM
To: Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder
Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
Subject: RE: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
elements of IGF functions ommitted
Importance: High

Hi Parminder,

> > However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> > less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> > Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> > three most important points of this para
> >  
> > So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> > functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> > far the most important ones ???

As Jeanette says, she lifted a piece of text from the abstract of my Malta
presentation on Karen's suggestion.  The purpose of that piece of text was
to underscore that the Tunis Agenda establishes a clear mandate for the IGF
to work closely with and play a catalytic role in relation to existing
governance mechanisms, not least with respect to the application of the WSIS
principles.  I think this is a point of paramount importance precisely
because, from a public interest standpoint, one would want the forum to help
open up debate on the non-transparent, non-inclusive nature of some
governance mechanisms, and to encourage change, but this part of the
mandate---which is actually quite elaborate in the Agenda---is being
systematically ignored because the more powerful states and the private
sector/ISOC maintain that the IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything
"being done elsewhere."  Hence the proposals on what, substantively, the
forum might actually do are being spun toward what are deemed to be
comparatively uncontroversial issues like spam and cybersecurity (that
anyone could think these uncontroversial, especially the latter, reflects a
complete nonrecognition of progressive positions, but whatever); read the
submissions on the IGF site and this is clear.  We could end up with the
forum being a once a year shebang where we get together and talk about a
discreet topic and then go home, rather than being an ongoing process that
inter alia fosters open dialogue on the democratization of IG generally.

Anyway, that's why there was a piece of the Tunis Agenda in the text
Jeanette circulated.  No explanatory text was included as to why it was
there because I didn't have time to write anything yesterday; you're
reacting to an in process, choppy process of dumping stuff in to be massaged
and clarified later.  So she was not trying to take anything off the table
or seeking to imply

> > more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> > arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 

Hopefully this clarifies the intentionality, or lack thereof.  

Two issues follow:

1.  I think it's important that we do have some text in the statement saying
that we take seriously the Tunis mandate for the IGF to promote transparency
and inclusion in extant arrangements, inter alia by assessing their
conformity with the WSIS principles.  I would think you agree with this, no?
It's certainly consistent with caucus and CS positions more generally
throughout the process.  Personally, I would like to see the IGF establish a
working group on Application of the WSIS Principles, since the secretariat
will not have the capacity or mandate to do this (status quo forces will
ensure that), and it's not the kind of function that can be performed by a
once a year big meeting alone.  

Would people be amenable to including a call for this in the caucus text?
If so, we can do it today.  Either way, I may try to write and submit a more
elaborate personal statement on the point, if I'm able to focus while
listening to the discussion.

2.  Regarding this point,

> > With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> > public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> > Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to 
> critical 
> > Internet resources



I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here saying
the IGF should not discuss policy issues.  On the second, per my reply to
Michael,  affordability and access have not been treated as IG issues and I
don't think we could get consensus amongst ourselves on the matter, which is
NOT to say that nobody cares about these issues, it's just a question of in
which context are they best addressed.  Again, we could certainly fudge the
issue by saying we think these are key concerns with which IG policies
should be consistent, but that's different.  And of course, you, APC, and
others who feel that these manifestly are IG issues can submit statements to
that effect.  I'm not sure what you mean by the third, but am guessing you
refer to the enhanced cooperation on oversight issues.  I guarantee that the
US-UK-Canada-Australia and private sector/ISOC will oppose that being in the
forum, and as such it probably won't happen, but personally I would be happy
to have the caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this
is discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.  

We need some very quick dialogue on this point and guidance for today's
drafting.  

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:55 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
> Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more
> progressive elements of IGF functions ommitted
> 
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> I have mentioned weeks ago that the caucus should think about a 
> statement for the Geneva consultation. I got no response, and nobody 
> drafted anything. This is why I decided yesterday to put together a list 
> of principles regarding the forum; principles I assume the caucus finds 
> relevant.
> 
> Karen suggested that I include parts of Bill's Malta presentation. She 
> attached that presentation so that everybody on this list could read it.
> Nobody objected, so Jeremy and I added parts of Bill's presentation. As 
> far as I am concerned, we can drop the second part or replace it by new 
> language.
> 
> The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective 
> process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged 
> elements of recent contributions.
> 
> Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply not 
> true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to 
> give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.
> 
> I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this 
> list in more polite and respectful way.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Jeanette,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I first read only part 1 of the submission, and thought its first point 
> > – ‘added value’ - was un-necessarily restrictive.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > To say
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> > The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> > 
> > institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance>>>
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > is to give, more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> > arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 
> > WSIS CS and of most other participants at WSIS (especially when the 
> > tunis agenda uses more substantive language – ‘build on the existing 
> > structures of IG’). So, I wanted to take this point out and add 
> one on – 
> > ‘domain and competence’ of IGF taking points from many submissions we 
> > have made on this point.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity building point 
> at number 
> > 2 and wanted to move it down. I also had some problems with the part of 
> > the point on 'thematic autonomy' where the IGF function was made 
> > un-necessarily restrictive by mentioning only diffusing 'best 
> practises' 
> > etc. We know we have always meant the IGF to have much greater 
> functions.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I thought these omissions (from my point of view) were minor, and that 
> > they came from different emphasis on different points - most of which 
> > were, in their essence, shared among us.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> > less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> > Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> > three most important points of this para
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > a)                 Discuss public policy issues related to key elements 
> > of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, 
> > robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > e)       Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> > accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> > developing world;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > j)         Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical Internet 
> > resources;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> > functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> > far the most important ones ???
> > 
> > With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> > public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> > Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to 
> critical 
> > Internet resources


> > 
> > And I cant take it to be un-intended omission, because all your listed 
> > points come from this para 72 (quoted below), so you CHOSE not to list 
> > these three points
.
> > 
> > I have some very basic problem with the politics that inform these 
> > omissions. I have tried to be constructive and all in my engagements on 
> > this list – but at this point I have no option but to state the matters 
> > in the strong terms that I have done here.
> > 
> > I think it is time IG caucus decided at least its broad 
> political stands 
> > on the IG issues, within which the debate can take place. If CS 
> is going 
> > to seek great dilution (from a progressive standpoint - whatever it may 
> > mean, but such terms are generally associated with CS) of commitments 
> > already made by governments in official summit docs rather than trying 
> > to take things further ahead, I don’t see the point in being with such 
> > an CS engagement at all. I know the multi-stakeholder and CS 
> > participations points are still there – but if these are the directions 
> > that CS participation is going to take, Id rather be represented by my 
> > country’s government’s nominee.  
> > 
> > regards
> > 
> > Parminder
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I am quoting para 72 of Tunis agenda for anyone to make their 
> > conclusions vis a vis clear specific exclusions mentioned above 
> from the 
> > list submitted in the proposed submission on behalf of the IG caucus.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > * Para 72;  We ask the UN Secretary-General *, in an open and inclusive 
> > process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting 
> of the new 
> > forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the /Internet 
> > Governance Forum/ (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > * a)       *Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of 
> > Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
> > security, stability and development of the Internet;
> > 
> > * b)       *Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different 
> > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and 
> > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body ;
> > 
> > * c)       *Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations 
> > and other institutions on matters under their purview;
> > 
> > * d)       *Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, 
> > and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, 
> > scientific and technical communities;
> > 
> > * e)       *Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> > accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> > developing world;
> > 
> > * f)        *Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in 
> > existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly 
> > those from developing countries;
> > 
> > * g)       *Identify emerging issues, bring them to the 
> attention of the 
> > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> > recommendations;
> > 
> > * h)       *Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in 
> > developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and 
> > expertise;
> > 
> > * i)         *Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the 
> embodiment of 
> > WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;
> > 
> > * j)         *Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical 
> > Internet resources;
> > 
> > * k)      *Help to find solutions to the issues arising from 
> the use and 
> > misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
> > 
> > * l)         *Publish its proceedings.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > ________________________________________________
> > 
> > Parminder Jeet Singh
> > 
> > IT for Change
> > 
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > 
> > 91-80-26654134
> > 
> > www.ITforChange.net
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:19 AM
> > To: Governance Caucus
> > Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential
> > 
> > caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need
> > 
> > further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are 
> welcome too.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps
> > 
> > somebody already in Geneva ? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> > 
> > institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending
> > 
> > participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of
> > 
> > dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
> > 
> > Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
> > 
> > Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
> > 
> > communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
> > 
> > barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
> > 
> > countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet
> > 
> > Governance.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must 
> be open to 
> > the
> > 
> > participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> > 
> > including governments, private sector, civil society and international
> > 
> > organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
> > 
> > to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such
> > 
> > as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical 
> attendance should 
> > not
> > 
> > be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness
> > 
> > of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote
> > 
> > participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable
> > 
> > to attend in person.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy 
> of the forum
> > 
> > that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is
> > 
> > expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making
> > 
> > capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective
> > 
> > working principle to enable high quality results.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its 
> topics as it
> > 
> > considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are
> > 
> > cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
> > 
> > competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be
> > 
> > seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that
> > 
> > promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
> > 
> > and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an 
> ongoing process
> > 
> > with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> > 
> > thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should
> > 
> > constitute just one element in this process.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing 
> locations for
> > 
> > the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
> > 
> > considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
> > 
> > governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
> > 
> > should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
> > 
> > of entrance visas.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum 
> must take an
> > 
> > open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership
> > 
> > and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must
> > 
> > publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
> > 
> > Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> > 
> > relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
> > 
> > things, the Forum should:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
> > 
> > bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
> > 
> > the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any
> > 
> > existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
> > 
> > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and 
> > other
> > 
> > institutions on matters under their purview;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> > 
> > and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> > 
> > developing countries;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of 
> the relevant
> > 
> > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> > recommendations;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance 
> in developing
> > 
> > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> > 
> > principles in Internet Governance processes.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Thu Feb 16 05:42:46 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:42:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] EU Troika Meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200602160823.AA23120039@rits.org.br>
References: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de>
	<WorldClient-F200602160823.AA23120039@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <1140086566.43f457267d785@heimail.unige.ch>

Hi,

But this is when we reserved the NGO Lounge for a caucus meeting to discuss our
intra-organizational issues, including the future of the caucus.  I cannot
imagine how that would not be a two hour conversation, but if people want we
could try to start it after the Troika discussion and then carry on after 6pm. 
Or we could meet the EU before the consultation, at 9am (brutal, I know)...

Bill


Quoting "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>:

> OK with me, Jeanette. Nothing scheduled for the 17th at 1 PM.
>
> --c.a.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>
> To: "'Governance Caucus'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:35:56 +0100
> Subject: [governance] EU Troika Meeting tomorrow
>
> > Hi, the EU Troika suggests a meeting with civil society tomorrow at
> > 1,
> > room 26. I hope people can make it. I don't think it is restricted to
> > European civil soc members. (Even Milton, who suspects not to be part
> > of
> > the incrowd can attend.)
> > Pls let me know as soon as possible in case there is a time conflict
> > so
> > that we can reschedule it.
> >
> > 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
>


*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
*******************************************************


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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 16 05:54:27 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:24:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEDGGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <200602161051.k1GApBPh073770@trout.cpsr.org>

Hi Michael and Bill,

As I proposed in an earlier email 'access and affordability' of internet is
not only an infrastructural issues - but has many many more implications -
many of them still not very clear at this stage of evolution of Internet.
This is the reason to keep these issues in IGF, though infrastructural
issues can also have some implication here - like in interconnection costs. 

As for Michael's either-or formulation - whether access should be discussed
in IGF or at global alliance kind of ICTD forums - the idea is not to shift
all ICTD discussion of 'access and affordability' to IGF. Discretion will of
course prevail - and IGF would need to take up only those issues of access
and affordability that are clearly connected to other IG issues. Some
overlap though may happen, and we can live with it. 

Regards

Parminder 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:20 PM
To: Gurstein, Michael; Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

Hi,

Karen and I have gone around on this a bit since WGIG.  While it is of
course an issue of paramount importance, I don't see access as an IG issue,
there are no applicable international shared rule systems, it's a function
of heterogeneous and uncoordinated national policies and corporate
decisions.  Accordingly, it hasn't really been treated as such in WGIG/WSIS.
Of course, one could say there should be international rules, but that's
different, and I would think there is an obligation to say just what such
rules might consist of.   I know Milton agrees with me and think some others
did when this came up previously. There also arguably would be some danger
of implying that international telecom rules, such as the ITU's treaty
instruments, that are supposed to encourage telephone access, apply to the
Internet.   Clearly it's an issue meriting further consideration and people
can reasonably disagree on it.  We can talk about this in our drafting
meeting today, but I don't think we'll reach a hard consensus on the point
in the time available.  Maybe there's some mention that could be worked out
to connect with and support APC's statement without declaring full stop that
the caucus all agrees this is an IG issue per se.

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Gurstein, Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:49 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
>
>
> As I expected, but a bit earlier than I assumed, mission creep
> for the IGF has already been initiated and by CS rather than by
> any of the other actors.
>
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Karen and Parminder that
> "access" (and thus "development") issues should be discussed at
> the IGF--if not there, where; and of course, it is difficult to
> distinguish issues of "access" and "capacity building" from
> "development" (and I guess that then means a not too big a lurch
> over into overall issues of ICT4D, yes?)...
>
> BUT, wasn't the division of responsibility to have been Internet
> Governance/Policy with the IGF and ICT4D with the Global Alliance
> (whose gestation has been even more lengthy and wrapped in
> shrouds of UN intrigue--an "extensive consultation",
> hmmm...--than the IGF...
>
> Again, maybe it would be best to have all the issues addressed in
> the IGF and leave the GA to moulder with the other "high level
> but participative UN blah blah's", but if that is the case, then
> the responsibilities that flow from that, and for everyone
> including (or especially) CS folks to figure out and make
> representations around all the issues of inclusion,
> "representivity", support mechanisms for participation, a
> possible role in direct policy development and even project
> implementation etc.etc. (which flows more or less directly from
> including the ICT4D "mandate") rears its head more or less immediately.
>
> That is, CS like everyone else can't have it both ways--having
> all the issues of importance (to the various components of CS) on
> the table in the IGF, without at the same time recognizing that
> some of those issues have much much broader constituencies and
> much more immediate physical impacts on folks on the ground than
> the rather more rarified (and dare I say "virtual") issues of
> things like spam and the allocations of responsibilities within
> the DNS, and that this being the case, maintaining the IGF as a
> rather exclusive talk shop for Internet (and travel funded)
> cognoscenti isn't going to (ahem) fly.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
> Sent: February 15, 2006 10:41 AM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann; Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
>
>
> hi
>
> i've looked over very quickly and can support
> everything here - we would have additional points
> to make, or would emphasize some points more than
> others, but can do so in a separate intervention.
>
> the two points i would add, or, think are missing
> - are the importance of a rights based approach
> to the forum (with specific reference to privacy
> and freedom of expression) and the importance of
> an overriding development orientation to the work
> of the IGF (i don't see any reference to
> developing country priorities in this text,
> excepting that of capacity building and
> participation - which are of course important,
> but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)
>
> anyway, if this is too difficult - i can raise in our intervention..
>
> APC will post it's survey response today, very
> late.. and i'll post a copy here..
>
> In some ways, we are still thinking, so the
> responses are not necessarily final final positions or perspectives ..
>
> karen
>
> At 22:48 14/02/2006, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual
> >very late, a potential caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> >
> >*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or
> >which parts need further editing or should be
> >deleted because they are controversial.
> >
> >*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome
> >too.
> >
> >Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good
> >if somebody - perhaps somebody already in
> >Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> >
> >
> >*       Added Value: The goal of the forum is to
> >add value to the existing institutional
> >arrangements relevant to Internet governance by
> >extending participation to a broader community
> >and by improving the quality of dialogue,
> >discussion and development in this field.
> >
> >*       Capacity-building: The IGF must
> >contribute to building capacity in Internet
> >governance amongst all stakeholders directly
> >engaged in Internet Governance and ICT policy
> >issues as well as within the wider communities
> >affected by them. The IGF must overcome the
> >specific barriers to effective participation, in
> >particular from developing countries, found in
> >the current institutional structures of Internet Governance.
> >
> >*       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness:
> >The forum must be open to the participation of
> >all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> >including governments, private sector, civil
> >society and international organizations. The
> >multi-stakeholder approach should not only be
> >applied to the forum but to all bodies and
> >processes related to the forum such as the
> >secretariat and a potential program committee.
> >
> >*       Inclusiveness and remote participation:
> >Physical attendance should not be required for
> >participation. In order to strengthen the
> >inclusiveness of its collaboration, the forum
> >should integrate new forms of remote
> >participation to enable contributions from
> >stakeholders who are unable to attend in person.
> >
> >*       Equality of participation: It is vital
> >to the legitimacy of the forum that all
> >stakeholders participate on an equal basis.
> >Since the forum is expected to act as a
> >facilitating body without binding decision
> >making capacity, equal footing for all
> >participants is the most effective working
> >principle to enable high quality results.
> >
> >*       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be
> >free to choose its topics as it considers
> >appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet
> >Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch
> >upon the responsibilities and competences of
> >existing organizations. However, the forum
> >should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF
> >will function as a facilitator that promotes
> >enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies
> >by generating and diffusing "best-practice" and
> >"lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> >
> >*       Forum as process: The forum should be
> >designed as an ongoing process with most of its
> >work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> >thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to
> >face meetings should constitute just one element in this process.
> >
> >*       Accessible location: The highest
> >priority in choosing locations for the forum
> >should be accessibility to all potential
> >participants. In considering perspective
> >locations issues such as: proximity to
> >governmental missions and the local hotel and
> >transit infrastructure should be balanced with
> >concerns about travel costs and the availability of entrance visas.
> >
> >*       Transparency: For the sake of its
> >legitimacy, the forum must take an open and
> >transparent approach to its structure,
> >procedures, membership and to all of its
> >deliberations and recommendations. The forum
> >must publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> >
> >
> >II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> >
> >
> >The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
> >calls on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to
> >play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> >relation to existing Internet governance
> >mechanisms.  Among other things, the Forum should:
> >
> >*       Facilitate the exchange of information
> >and best practices between bodies dealing with
> >different international public policies
> >regarding the Internet and discuss issues that
> >do not fall within the scope of any existing
> >body. In this regard the Forum should make full
> >use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical
> communities;
> >
> >ï'§     Interface: with appropriate
> >inter-governmental organizations and other
> >institutions on matters under their purview;
> >
> >ï'§     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of
> >stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet
> >Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
> >
> >ï'§     Identify emerging issues, bring them to
> >the attention of the relevant bodies and the
> >general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
> >
> >*       Contribute to capacity-building for
> >Internet Governance in developing countries,
> >drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> >
> >*       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis,
> >the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.
> >
> >
> >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
>


_______________________________________________
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


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 05:58:47 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:58:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] EU Troika Meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <1140086566.43f457267d785@heimail.unige.ch>
References: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de>
	<WorldClient-F200602160823.AA23120039@rits.org.br>
	<1140086566.43f457267d785@heimail.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <954259bd0602160258v59462468kacea9cf892b3ef71@mail.gmail.com>

I'm OK with tomorrow at 1for the trika meeting, even if I get Bill's
argument.

Bertrand




On 2/16/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> But this is when we reserved the NGO Lounge for a caucus meeting to
> discuss our
> intra-organizational issues, including the future of the caucus.  I cannot
> imagine how that would not be a two hour conversation, but if people want
> we
> could try to start it after the Troika discussion and then carry on after
> 6pm.
> Or we could meet the EU before the consultation, at 9am (brutal, I
> know)...
>
> Bill
>
>
> Quoting "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>:
>
> > OK with me, Jeanette. Nothing scheduled for the 17th at 1 PM.
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>
> > To: "'Governance Caucus'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:35:56 +0100
> > Subject: [governance] EU Troika Meeting tomorrow
> >
> > > Hi, the EU Troika suggests a meeting with civil society tomorrow at
> > > 1,
> > > room 26. I hope people can make it. I don't think it is restricted to
> > > European civil soc members. (Even Milton, who suspects not to be part
> > > of
> > > the incrowd can attend.)
> > > Pls let me know as soon as possible in case there is a time conflict
> > > so
> > > that we can reschedule it.
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> *******************************************************
> William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
> Director, Project on the Information
> Revolution and Global Governance
> Graduate Institute for International Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> President, Computer Professionals for
>   Social Responsibility
> http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
> *******************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060216/3f67f1e5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From drake at hei.unige.ch  Thu Feb 16 06:07:17 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:07:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
 elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <0IUS0037A04WY6@romeo.unige.ch>
References: <0IUS0037A04WY6@romeo.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <1140088037.43f45ce51cf68@heimail.unige.ch>

Hi Parminder,

>
> Hi Bill,
>
> >> I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here
> saying the IGF should not discuss policy issues.  >>>
>
> I had clearly stated the logic behind what I said. The 6 points in
> Jeanette's proposal (that, as you say, came from your Malta submission) are
> lifted ad verbatim from the points in para 72 of tunis agenda. So, not to
> pick the first point in this para which speaks of IF as a place for Internet
> related public policy discussion, and the other two points on access to
> Internet, and taking up issues related to critical Internet resources, is
> quite glaring.

In what sense is it glaring?  As I said clearly, the purpose of the presentation
I made in Malta was to point out that Tunis Agenda gives the IGF an unambiguous
mandate to advance the WSIS principles and, to that end, interface with
existing
governance mechanisms.  Since that was what I was talking about, I cut in those
parts of the Agenda that speak to the point.  The substantive issues that the
Forum should address, including PP issues regarding critical resources, is a
separate matter. So I'm sorry, if you insist on reading into what I used and
what I did not use from the TA some private agenda regarding an unrelated
point, it's a misrepresentation.  This is especially so since, as I also said
quite clearly, I would *support* the IGF discussing the issues you are claiming
I/we oppose the IGF discussing.

> And neither her nor your email explains how these 3 most important issues
> were not picked, and other 6 picked.

My mail clearly explains why I picked the points related to the topic of WSIS
principles' application and inter-organizational relations, and not the points
that are not direct to that focus.

> >> >>>>I think this is a point of paramount importance precisely because,
> from a public interest standpoint, one would want the forum to help open up
> debate on the non-transparent, non-inclusive nature of some governance
> mechanisms, and to encourage change, but this part of the mandate---which is
> actually quite elaborate in the Agenda---is being systematically ignored
> because the more powerful states and the private sector/ISOC maintain that
> the IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything "being done elsewhere."
> >>>>>>
>
>
> The same most powerful states and the private sector want to keep broad
> public policy discussion, access, and critical resources issues out.... And
> CS's responsibility to keep insisting on keeping them in - and mentioning
> them everytime - becomes even more important.

I don't disagree with this, although obviously the caucus has a diversity of
views on the point.

> >>>> On the second, per my reply to Michael,  affordability and access have
> not been treated as IG issues and I don't think we could get consensus
> amongst ourselves on the matter, which is NOT to say that nobody cares about
> these issues, it's just a question of in which context are they best
> addressed.>>>>>
>
> You write in your reply to email to Michael that access has not been treated
> as an access issue in WGIG/WSIS. This is not true - inter-connections costs
> are mentioned both in WGIG and tunis docs, and point 72 e of tunis agenda
> clearly mentions issues regarding access to be part of IGF mandate.

Interconnection costs are one element of the broader access equation.  I have
long argued here and elsewhere that while there are no fixed rules or
governance mechanisms for international interconnection, there should be.  Many
others concur. So yes, this has widely been understood in the WSIS context to
be an IG-related issue.  But access more generally has not been so understood.

> And I cant see why you and others wont see access issues as at least
> possibly to be IG issues - we shd know that Internet is still going to
> evolve - and all kinds of efforts are on to evolve it in directions of
> increased commercialization. So, to put considerations of access issues in
> IGF's mandate - when we all agree that it should be wider than narrow -
> should hurt no one. And for me even domain name multilingualaism and content
> related IPR issues that have clear IG connections are access issues (access
> is not only infrastructural access). So if IGF has an mandate to look at
> every issues from an access and affordability point of view as well - I cant
> understand what could be anyone's objection to it. (as they say in feminist
> literature - everything needs to be seen through a gender lens - if you are
> seeing it so, you will find the gender elements in practically everything.
> And if you don’t want to see, you wont.)

It's a matter of being clear about what fits the category IG and what does not.
There are many globally pressing issues that don't fit clearly under the
rubric.  Saying that doesn't mean that I/we don't care about them, and implying
otherwise is not conducive to dialogue.

> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by the third, but am guessing you refer to
> the enhanced cooperation on oversight issues.  I guarantee that the
> US-UK-Canada-Australia and private sector/ISOC will oppose that being in the
> forum, and as such it probably won't happen, but personally I would be happy
> to have the caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this
> is discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.  >>>>
>
> But the third - the exclusion of point on critical internet resources - I
> mean simply that para 72 clearly puts it in IGF's mandate to discuss
> ' issues relating to critical Internet resources'. So why are we - CS -
> ignoring it. I cant see how US UK and others are going to oppose it because
> they signed on the document. The issue is - what we - the CS - have to say
> about it. Are we so mindful of US and UK opposing it that we also let it
> slip from our agenda - even when it is already an agreed commitment - and
> what is needed now from the CS side is to hold governments to their
> commitment.

Well they have opposed it, here in the room and elsewhere.

> I am sorry Bill, but even with your detailed explanation I am unable to
> understand what direction - and what principles and politics - is the IG
> caucus submission to the IGF consultation taking.

And I'm sorry too, I cannot understand why my explanation is unclear to you, or
why you are inferring and implying things about colleagues that clearly don't
reflect their thinking.  I say again, you think that the forum should address
public policy issues for critical resources.  Fine, I'm ok with that.  Let's
see if others agree.  If they don't, ok, views in the caucus are diverse, and
the challenge then is collegial persuasion.

Best,

Bill



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


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Thu Feb 16 06:13:41 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:13:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
 elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <200602161033.k1GAXcpk073302@trout.cpsr.org>
References: <200602161033.k1GAXcpk073302@trout.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <43F45E65.4080407@bertola.eu.org>

Parminder ha scritto:
> I had clearly stated the logic behind what I said. The 6 points in
> Jeanette's proposal (that, as you say, came from your Malta submission) are
> lifted ad verbatim from the points in para 72 of tunis agenda. So, not to
> pick the first point in this para which speaks of IF as a place for Internet
> related public policy discussion, and the other two points on access to
> Internet, and taking up issues related to critical Internet resources, is
> quite glaring. 
> 
> And neither her nor your email explains how these 3 most important issues
> were not picked, and other 6 picked.

Now that this misunderstanding has been cleared, I suggest we write text 
that reflects both Bill's point on stressing the importance of the 
"embodiment of the WSIS principles in IG mechanisms", which is extremely 
important for us, and your point on access.

Generally speaking, I know that different people in the caucus and 
elsewhere in CS have different priorities - some are desperate about 
access and resources, others are desperate about rights, others about 
procedural problems. We should not struggle to affirm any of this over 
the others, we should stress them all and most importantly try to ensure 
that the IGF is built as a mechanism that allows all different souls of 
CS to push the creation of different working groups on each of their pet 
issues, and work in parallel on each of them.

If we succeed, the result is likely to be massive, thanks to our usual 
winning weapon - running faster and longer than the other stakeholders.

And now that I've got your attention, this is the link to my IETF-like 
model for the IGF as contributed yesterday:
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/An%20implementation%20proposal%20for%20the%20IGF.pdf
which I suspect quite similar to proposals by other people such as 
Milton (the IGP) and Avri.


P.S. In any case, please realize that almost all developed country 
governments are strongly opposed to discussing "resources" (ie ICANN 
reforms) in the IGF - you'll listen to this tomorrow by the EU Troika as 
well, I guess. They want to keep this matter for a separate, possibly 
gov-only discussion, as stated in the Tunis Agenda (which calls for a 
separate Annan-led process to discuss the "new cooperation model"). So 
we might try to push this if we like, but I don't think it will fly. 
Access, of course, is another matter.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Thu Feb 16 06:16:14 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:16:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] Live webcast of the IGF consultations
Message-ID: <43F45EFE.4090100@bertola.eu.org>

All,

I'd like to recall to everyone that, as usual, the IGF Consultations 
from Geneva are now being streamed live, with 100% free software 
solutions, at this URL:

http://streaming.polito.it/IGF-live
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Feb 16 07:19:23 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:19:23 -0300
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <f31ae3560602151621i7b41f1e7p15a736ffa4c5c3f2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43F25E51.1070300@wz-berlin.de>
	<f31ae3560602151621i7b41f1e7p15a736ffa4c5c3f2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200602160919.AA19230041@rits.org.br>

Although I could not check for possible incompatibilities with the APC
statement (the APC response to the IGF questionnaire) -- it would be
great if the caucus and APC are in tune on the crucial issues, and I
think there are no incompatibilities --, it looks OK to me.

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" <apeake at gmail.com>
To: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>
Cc: Governance Caucus <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:21:20 +0900
Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

> Jeanette, Jeremy: thank you. Very good statement. I think it reflects
> what we've discussed, I can't think of anything to add that has been
> broadly supported by the caucus before. Please read it if you get
> chance.
> 
> Apologies for being slow to reply, too much travel at the moment.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam


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


From mr.marouen at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 06:25:24 2006
From: mr.marouen at gmail.com (Marouen MRAIHI)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:25:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] FW: Joint Letter to ICANN Board
Message-ID: <9ea79150602160325r742d8f9el@mail.gmail.com>

    * To: <revised-settlement at xxxxxxxxx>
    * Subject: Joint Letter to Board
    * From: "Mary Greczyn" <mg at xxxxxxxxx>
    * Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:38:23 -0500

Please find attached a letter to the Board of Directors of ICANN, which was
sent February 14, 2006 and raises for consideration points of concern regarding
the revised, proposed settlement agreement between VeriSign and ICANN and the
proposed .com contract extension with ICANN. Registrars signing the letter
represented the Go Daddy Group, Network Solutions, Tucows, Melbourne IT,
Register.com; Schlund+Partner AG, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. and
BulkRegister, LLC.

Sincerely,

Mary Greczyn
Freedom Technologies
1317 F Street NW
Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20004
202/371-2997

http://forum.icann.org/lists/revised-settlement/msg00016.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pdf0ZMwPANaWu.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 65302 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060216/9aa1a151/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 16 06:25:28 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:55:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOGEDHGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <200602161122.k1GBMDnx079383@trout.cpsr.org>


Bill

Also in the light of what you say

>>>>I think this is a point of paramount importance precisely because, from
a public interest standpoint, one would want the forum to help open up
debate on the non-transparent, non-inclusive nature of some governance
mechanisms, and to encourage change, but this part of the mandate---which is
actually quite elaborate in the Agenda---is being systematically ignored
because the more powerful states and the private sector/ISOC maintain that
the IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything "being done
elsewhere.">>>>>


My point also is that in the selection of the 6 points in the proposed
submission for the IGP functions the first point of para 72 of tunis agenda
regarding an open forum for public policy discussion has been replaced by
the point 

>>>>Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between 
bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding the
Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any
existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;>>>

Now this new first point stresses that IGF 'discuss issues that do not fall
within the scope of any existing body'. But it would seem from your argument
above - cautioning against powerful states' stand that 

>> the more powerful states and the private sector/ISOC maintain that the
IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything "being done elsewhere>>

that this is precisely the part that we want to suppress. I am also
completely for suppressing it. But then why put this point right up as the
first point in CS submission for possible functions for IGF....

Regards

Parminder 


________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 1:00 PM
To: Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder
Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
Subject: RE: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
elements of IGF functions ommitted
Importance: High

Hi Parminder,

> > However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> > less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> > Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> > three most important points of this para
> >  
> > So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> > functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> > far the most important ones ???

As Jeanette says, she lifted a piece of text from the abstract of my Malta
presentation on Karen's suggestion.  The purpose of that piece of text was
to underscore that the Tunis Agenda establishes a clear mandate for the IGF
to work closely with and play a catalytic role in relation to existing
governance mechanisms, not least with respect to the application of the WSIS
principles.  I think this is a point of paramount importance precisely
because, from a public interest standpoint, one would want the forum to help
open up debate on the non-transparent, non-inclusive nature of some
governance mechanisms, and to encourage change, but this part of the
mandate---which is actually quite elaborate in the Agenda---is being
systematically ignored because the more powerful states and the private
sector/ISOC maintain that the IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything
"being done elsewhere."  Hence the proposals on what, substantively, the
forum might actually do are being spun toward what are deemed to be
comparatively uncontroversial issues like spam and cybersecurity (that
anyone could think these uncontroversial, especially the latter, reflects a
complete nonrecognition of progressive positions, but whatever); read the
submissions on the IGF site and this is clear.  We could end up with the
forum being a once a year shebang where we get together and talk about a
discreet topic and then go home, rather than being an ongoing process that
inter alia fosters open dialogue on the democratization of IG generally.

Anyway, that's why there was a piece of the Tunis Agenda in the text
Jeanette circulated.  No explanatory text was included as to why it was
there because I didn't have time to write anything yesterday; you're
reacting to an in process, choppy process of dumping stuff in to be massaged
and clarified later.  So she was not trying to take anything off the table
or seeking to imply

> > more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> > arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 

Hopefully this clarifies the intentionality, or lack thereof.  

Two issues follow:

1.  I think it's important that we do have some text in the statement saying
that we take seriously the Tunis mandate for the IGF to promote transparency
and inclusion in extant arrangements, inter alia by assessing their
conformity with the WSIS principles.  I would think you agree with this, no?
It's certainly consistent with caucus and CS positions more generally
throughout the process.  Personally, I would like to see the IGF establish a
working group on Application of the WSIS Principles, since the secretariat
will not have the capacity or mandate to do this (status quo forces will
ensure that), and it's not the kind of function that can be performed by a
once a year big meeting alone.  

Would people be amenable to including a call for this in the caucus text?
If so, we can do it today.  Either way, I may try to write and submit a more
elaborate personal statement on the point, if I'm able to focus while
listening to the discussion.

2.  Regarding this point,

> > With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> > public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> > Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to 
> critical 
> > Internet resources



I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here saying
the IGF should not discuss policy issues.  On the second, per my reply to
Michael,  affordability and access have not been treated as IG issues and I
don't think we could get consensus amongst ourselves on the matter, which is
NOT to say that nobody cares about these issues, it's just a question of in
which context are they best addressed.  Again, we could certainly fudge the
issue by saying we think these are key concerns with which IG policies
should be consistent, but that's different.  And of course, you, APC, and
others who feel that these manifestly are IG issues can submit statements to
that effect.  I'm not sure what you mean by the third, but am guessing you
refer to the enhanced cooperation on oversight issues.  I guarantee that the
US-UK-Canada-Australia and private sector/ISOC will oppose that being in the
forum, and as such it probably won't happen, but personally I would be happy
to have the caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this
is discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.  

We need some very quick dialogue on this point and guidance for today's
drafting.  

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:55 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
> Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more
> progressive elements of IGF functions ommitted
> 
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> I have mentioned weeks ago that the caucus should think about a 
> statement for the Geneva consultation. I got no response, and nobody 
> drafted anything. This is why I decided yesterday to put together a list 
> of principles regarding the forum; principles I assume the caucus finds 
> relevant.
> 
> Karen suggested that I include parts of Bill's Malta presentation. She 
> attached that presentation so that everybody on this list could read it.
> Nobody objected, so Jeremy and I added parts of Bill's presentation. As 
> far as I am concerned, we can drop the second part or replace it by new 
> language.
> 
> The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective 
> process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged 
> elements of recent contributions.
> 
> Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply not 
> true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to 
> give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.
> 
> I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this 
> list in more polite and respectful way.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Jeanette,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I first read only part 1 of the submission, and thought its first point 
> > – ‘added value’ - was un-necessarily restrictive.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > To say
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> > The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> > 
> > institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance>>>
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > is to give, more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> > arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 
> > WSIS CS and of most other participants at WSIS (especially when the 
> > tunis agenda uses more substantive language – ‘build on the existing 
> > structures of IG’). So, I wanted to take this point out and add 
> one on – 
> > ‘domain and competence’ of IGF taking points from many submissions we 
> > have made on this point.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity building point 
> at number 
> > 2 and wanted to move it down. I also had some problems with the part of 
> > the point on 'thematic autonomy' where the IGF function was made 
> > un-necessarily restrictive by mentioning only diffusing 'best 
> practises' 
> > etc. We know we have always meant the IGF to have much greater 
> functions.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I thought these omissions (from my point of view) were minor, and that 
> > they came from different emphasis on different points - most of which 
> > were, in their essence, shared among us.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> > less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> > Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> > three most important points of this para
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > a)                 Discuss public policy issues related to key elements 
> > of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, 
> > robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > e)       Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> > accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> > developing world;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > j)         Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical Internet 
> > resources;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> > functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> > far the most important ones ???
> > 
> > With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> > public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> > Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to 
> critical 
> > Internet resources


> > 
> > And I cant take it to be un-intended omission, because all your listed 
> > points come from this para 72 (quoted below), so you CHOSE not to list 
> > these three points
.
> > 
> > I have some very basic problem with the politics that inform these 
> > omissions. I have tried to be constructive and all in my engagements on 
> > this list – but at this point I have no option but to state the matters 
> > in the strong terms that I have done here.
> > 
> > I think it is time IG caucus decided at least its broad 
> political stands 
> > on the IG issues, within which the debate can take place. If CS 
> is going 
> > to seek great dilution (from a progressive standpoint - whatever it may 
> > mean, but such terms are generally associated with CS) of commitments 
> > already made by governments in official summit docs rather than trying 
> > to take things further ahead, I don’t see the point in being with such 
> > an CS engagement at all. I know the multi-stakeholder and CS 
> > participations points are still there – but if these are the directions 
> > that CS participation is going to take, Id rather be represented by my 
> > country’s government’s nominee.  
> > 
> > regards
> > 
> > Parminder
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I am quoting para 72 of Tunis agenda for anyone to make their 
> > conclusions vis a vis clear specific exclusions mentioned above 
> from the 
> > list submitted in the proposed submission on behalf of the IG caucus.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > * Para 72;  We ask the UN Secretary-General *, in an open and inclusive 
> > process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting 
> of the new 
> > forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the /Internet 
> > Governance Forum/ (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > * a)       *Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of 
> > Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
> > security, stability and development of the Internet;
> > 
> > * b)       *Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different 
> > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and 
> > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body ;
> > 
> > * c)       *Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations 
> > and other institutions on matters under their purview;
> > 
> > * d)       *Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, 
> > and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, 
> > scientific and technical communities;
> > 
> > * e)       *Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> > accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> > developing world;
> > 
> > * f)        *Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in 
> > existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly 
> > those from developing countries;
> > 
> > * g)       *Identify emerging issues, bring them to the 
> attention of the 
> > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> > recommendations;
> > 
> > * h)       *Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in 
> > developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and 
> > expertise;
> > 
> > * i)         *Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the 
> embodiment of 
> > WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;
> > 
> > * j)         *Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical 
> > Internet resources;
> > 
> > * k)      *Help to find solutions to the issues arising from 
> the use and 
> > misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
> > 
> > * l)         *Publish its proceedings.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > ________________________________________________
> > 
> > Parminder Jeet Singh
> > 
> > IT for Change
> > 
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > 
> > 91-80-26654134
> > 
> > www.ITforChange.net
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:19 AM
> > To: Governance Caucus
> > Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential
> > 
> > caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need
> > 
> > further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are 
> welcome too.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps
> > 
> > somebody already in Geneva ? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> > 
> > institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending
> > 
> > participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of
> > 
> > dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
> > 
> > Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
> > 
> > Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
> > 
> > communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
> > 
> > barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
> > 
> > countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet
> > 
> > Governance.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must 
> be open to 
> > the
> > 
> > participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> > 
> > including governments, private sector, civil society and international
> > 
> > organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
> > 
> > to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such
> > 
> > as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical 
> attendance should 
> > not
> > 
> > be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness
> > 
> > of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote
> > 
> > participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable
> > 
> > to attend in person.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy 
> of the forum
> > 
> > that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is
> > 
> > expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making
> > 
> > capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective
> > 
> > working principle to enable high quality results.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its 
> topics as it
> > 
> > considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are
> > 
> > cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
> > 
> > competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be
> > 
> > seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that
> > 
> > promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
> > 
> > and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an 
> ongoing process
> > 
> > with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> > 
> > thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should
> > 
> > constitute just one element in this process.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing 
> locations for
> > 
> > the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
> > 
> > considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
> > 
> > governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
> > 
> > should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
> > 
> > of entrance visas.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum 
> must take an
> > 
> > open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership
> > 
> > and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must
> > 
> > publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
> > 
> > Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> > 
> > relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
> > 
> > things, the Forum should:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
> > 
> > bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
> > 
> > the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any
> > 
> > existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
> > 
> > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and 
> > other
> > 
> > institutions on matters under their purview;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> > 
> > and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> > 
> > developing countries;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of 
> the relevant
> > 
> > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> > recommendations;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance 
> in developing
> > 
> > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> > 
> > principles in Internet Governance processes.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 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


From apeake at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 06:25:41 2006
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:25:41 +0900
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <200602161051.k1GApBPh073770@trout.cpsr.org>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEDGGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<200602161051.k1GApBPh073770@trout.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <f31ae3560602160325w77af7a10qea624c75298b9de4@mail.gmail.com>

I thought one of the principles we agreed on for the forum was that
any stakeholder could raise any issue. Or are we now saying some
issues are off limits?

Adam

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


From Daphney.Ledwaba at sita.co.za  Thu Feb 16 06:31:36 2006
From: Daphney.Ledwaba at sita.co.za (Daphney Ledwaba)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:31:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Unsubscription
Message-ID: <3AC0257148732942829F0DCB534CCC8B0103B526@SCENMS004.sita.co.za>

 
Good Day
I have been trying to unsubscribe from the governance list but all in
vain. I sent you thousand mails to remove my name on the list. Can
someone  please assist with this urgent request.
 
Regard
 


State Information Technology Agency (Proprietary) Limited Registration Number 1999/001899/07

This email and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential and proprietary information. This information is private and protected by law and, accordingly, if you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete this entire communication immediately and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of or taking any action based on this information is prohibited. 
Emails cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses. The sender does not accept any liability or responsibility for any interception, corruption, destruction, loss, late arrival or incompleteness of or tampering or interference with any of the information contained in this email or for its incorrect delivery or non-delivery for whatsoever reason or for its effect on any electronic device of the recipient.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060216/4a5cb12d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 16 06:36:49 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:06:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <43F35CC8.4090802@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <200602161133.k1GBXX1F079702@trout.cpsr.org>



Dear Jeanette, 

The argument and the positions here are not against any people, but against some principles and politics. And my stand and voice in this regard will take various pitches depending on the exigency of the situation. Advocacy in favour of certain principles and politics is my full time occupation - and I cannot completely sacrifice this primary task at the altar of friendship and politeness. 

I have not just made un-substantiated comments - but argued the logic behind them. (not that I expect everyone to agree with them.) And I did what I did with complete responsibility - especially with the background of earlier problems on similar issues. Therefore I'd appeal to you not to take these comments personally. I have no option but to do what I am doing. 

Heartiest regards

Parminder

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:25 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive elements of IGF functions ommitted

Parminder,

I have mentioned weeks ago that the caucus should think about a 
statement for the Geneva consultation. I got no response, and nobody 
drafted anything. This is why I decided yesterday to put together a list 
of principles regarding the forum; principles I assume the caucus finds 
relevant.

Karen suggested that I include parts of Bill's Malta presentation. She 
attached that presentation so that everybody on this list could read it.
Nobody objected, so Jeremy and I added parts of Bill's presentation. As 
far as I am concerned, we can drop the second part or replace it by new 
language.

The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective 
process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged 
elements of recent contributions.

Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply not 
true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to 
give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.

I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this 
list in more polite and respectful way.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Jeanette,
> 
>  
> 
> I first read only part 1 of the submission, and thought its first point 
> – ‘added value’ - was un-necessarily restrictive.
> 
>  
> 
> To say
> 
>  
> 
>> > The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> 
> institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance>>>
> 
>  
> 
> is to give, more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 
> WSIS CS and of most other participants at WSIS (especially when the 
> tunis agenda uses more substantive language – ‘build on the existing 
> structures of IG’). So, I wanted to take this point out and add one on – 
> ‘domain and competence’ of IGF taking points from many submissions we 
> have made on this point.
> 
>  
> 
> I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity building point at number 
> 2 and wanted to move it down. I also had some problems with the part of 
> the point on 'thematic autonomy' where the IGF function was made 
> un-necessarily restrictive by mentioning only diffusing 'best practises' 
> etc. We know we have always meant the IGF to have much greater functions.
> 
>  
> 
> I thought these omissions (from my point of view) were minor, and that 
> they came from different emphasis on different points - most of which 
> were, in their essence, shared among us.
> 
>  
> 
> However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> three most important points of this para
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> a)                 Discuss public policy issues related to key elements 
> of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, 
> robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;
> 
>  
> 
> e)       Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> developing world;
> 
>  
> 
> j)         Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical Internet 
> resources;
> 
>  
> 
> So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> far the most important ones ???
> 
> With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to critical 
> Internet resources……
> 
> And I cant take it to be un-intended omission, because all your listed 
> points come from this para 72 (quoted below), so you CHOSE not to list 
> these three points….
> 
> I have some very basic problem with the politics that inform these 
> omissions. I have tried to be constructive and all in my engagements on 
> this list – but at this point I have no option but to state the matters 
> in the strong terms that I have done here.
> 
> I think it is time IG caucus decided at least its broad political stands 
> on the IG issues, within which the debate can take place. If CS is going 
> to seek great dilution (from a progressive standpoint - whatever it may 
> mean, but such terms are generally associated with CS) of commitments 
> already made by governments in official summit docs rather than trying 
> to take things further ahead, I don’t see the point in being with such 
> an CS engagement at all. I know the multi-stakeholder and CS 
> participations points are still there – but if these are the directions 
> that CS participation is going to take, Id rather be represented by my 
> country’s government’s nominee.  
> 
> regards
> 
> Parminder
> 
>  
> 
> I am quoting para 72 of Tunis agenda for anyone to make their 
> conclusions vis a vis clear specific exclusions mentioned above from the 
> list submitted in the proposed submission on behalf of the IG caucus.
> 
>  
> 
> * Para 72;  We ask the UN Secretary-General *, in an open and inclusive 
> process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new 
> forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the /Internet 
> Governance Forum/ (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:
> 
>  
> 
> * a)       *Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of 
> Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
> security, stability and development of the Internet;
> 
> * b)       *Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different 
> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and 
> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body ;
> 
> * c)       *Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations 
> and other institutions on matters under their purview;
> 
> * d)       *Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, 
> and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, 
> scientific and technical communities;
> 
> * e)       *Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> developing world;
> 
> * f)        *Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in 
> existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly 
> those from developing countries;
> 
> * g)       *Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the 
> relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> recommendations;
> 
> * h)       *Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in 
> developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and 
> expertise;
> 
> * i)         *Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of 
> WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;
> 
> * j)         *Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical 
> Internet resources;
> 
> * k)      *Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and 
> misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
> 
> * l)         *Publish its proceedings.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> 
> IT for Change
> 
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> 
> 91-80-26654134
> 
> www.ITforChange.net
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:19 AM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
> 
>  
> 
> Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential
> 
> caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> 
>  
> 
> *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need
> 
> further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.
> 
>  
> 
> *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome too.
> 
>  
> 
> Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps
> 
> somebody already in Geneva ? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> 
>  
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> 
>  
> 
> I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> •     Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> 
> institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending
> 
> participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of
> 
> dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
> 
> Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
> 
> Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
> 
> communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
> 
> barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
> 
> countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet
> 
> Governance.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must be open to 
> the
> 
> participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> 
> including governments, private sector, civil society and international
> 
> organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
> 
> to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such
> 
> as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical attendance should 
> not
> 
> be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness
> 
> of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote
> 
> participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable
> 
> to attend in person.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy of the forum
> 
> that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is
> 
> expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making
> 
> capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective
> 
> working principle to enable high quality results.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its topics as it
> 
> considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are
> 
> cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
> 
> competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be
> 
> seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that
> 
> promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
> 
> and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an ongoing process
> 
> with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> 
> thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should
> 
> constitute just one element in this process.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing locations for
> 
> the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
> 
> considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
> 
> governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
> 
> should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
> 
> of entrance visas.
> 
>  
> 
> •     Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum must take an
> 
> open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership
> 
> and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must
> 
> publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
> 
> Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> 
> relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
> 
> things, the Forum should:
> 
>  
> 
> •     Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
> 
> bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
> 
> the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any
> 
> existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
> 
> expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
> 
>  
> 
>      Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and 
> other
> 
> institutions on matters under their purview;
> 
>  
> 
>      Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> 
> and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> 
> developing countries;
> 
>  
> 
>      Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
> 
> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> recommendations;
> 
>  
> 
> •     Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing
> 
> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> 
>  
> 
> •     Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> 
> principles in Internet Governance processes.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 16 06:48:09 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:18:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <1140088037.43f45ce51cf68@heimail.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <200602161144.k1GBirnN079999@trout.cpsr.org>

Bill

I have no issues with your Malta presentation - it is a personal thing, and
of course can legitimately have one angle stressed more than others - as
presentations in specific contexts need to do.....

My reference to glaring omission is just regarding the proposed IG caucus
submission to the crucial IGF meeting.... and the general 'acceptance'
building around it.....

>> I say again, you think that the forum should address
public policy issues for critical resources.  Fine, I'm ok with that.  Let's
see if others agree.  If they don't, ok, views in the caucus are diverse,
and
the challenge then is collegial persuasion.>>>

Yes, this is important. I would like to know who all do not agree that
public policy issues for critical resources should not be discussed in the
IGF. Just to know people's views that all.... because that is a bit
surprising for me that there are people here who believe so. I am very eager
to hear their logic for it. 

Best 

Parminder 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:37 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'Governance Caucus'
Subject: RE: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
elements of IGF functions ommitted

Hi Parminder,

>
> Hi Bill,
>
> >> I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here
> saying the IGF should not discuss policy issues.  >>>
>
> I had clearly stated the logic behind what I said. The 6 points in
> Jeanette's proposal (that, as you say, came from your Malta submission)
are
> lifted ad verbatim from the points in para 72 of tunis agenda. So, not to
> pick the first point in this para which speaks of IF as a place for
Internet
> related public policy discussion, and the other two points on access to
> Internet, and taking up issues related to critical Internet resources, is
> quite glaring.

In what sense is it glaring?  As I said clearly, the purpose of the
presentation
I made in Malta was to point out that Tunis Agenda gives the IGF an
unambiguous
mandate to advance the WSIS principles and, to that end, interface with
existing
governance mechanisms.  Since that was what I was talking about, I cut in
those
parts of the Agenda that speak to the point.  The substantive issues that
the
Forum should address, including PP issues regarding critical resources, is a
separate matter. So I'm sorry, if you insist on reading into what I used and
what I did not use from the TA some private agenda regarding an unrelated
point, it's a misrepresentation.  This is especially so since, as I also
said
quite clearly, I would *support* the IGF discussing the issues you are
claiming
I/we oppose the IGF discussing.

> And neither her nor your email explains how these 3 most important issues
> were not picked, and other 6 picked.

My mail clearly explains why I picked the points related to the topic of
WSIS
principles' application and inter-organizational relations, and not the
points
that are not direct to that focus.

> >> >>>>I think this is a point of paramount importance precisely because,
> from a public interest standpoint, one would want the forum to help open
up
> debate on the non-transparent, non-inclusive nature of some governance
> mechanisms, and to encourage change, but this part of the mandate---which
is
> actually quite elaborate in the Agenda---is being systematically ignored
> because the more powerful states and the private sector/ISOC maintain that
> the IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything "being done elsewhere."
> >>>>>>
>
>
> The same most powerful states and the private sector want to keep broad
> public policy discussion, access, and critical resources issues out....
And
> CS's responsibility to keep insisting on keeping them in - and mentioning
> them everytime - becomes even more important.

I don't disagree with this, although obviously the caucus has a diversity of
views on the point.

> >>>> On the second, per my reply to Michael,  affordability and access
have
> not been treated as IG issues and I don't think we could get consensus
> amongst ourselves on the matter, which is NOT to say that nobody cares
about
> these issues, it's just a question of in which context are they best
> addressed.>>>>>
>
> You write in your reply to email to Michael that access has not been
treated
> as an access issue in WGIG/WSIS. This is not true - inter-connections
costs
> are mentioned both in WGIG and tunis docs, and point 72 e of tunis agenda
> clearly mentions issues regarding access to be part of IGF mandate.

Interconnection costs are one element of the broader access equation.  I
have
long argued here and elsewhere that while there are no fixed rules or
governance mechanisms for international interconnection, there should be.
Many
others concur. So yes, this has widely been understood in the WSIS context
to
be an IG-related issue.  But access more generally has not been so
understood.

> And I cant see why you and others wont see access issues as at least
> possibly to be IG issues - we shd know that Internet is still going to
> evolve - and all kinds of efforts are on to evolve it in directions of
> increased commercialization. So, to put considerations of access issues in
> IGF's mandate - when we all agree that it should be wider than narrow -
> should hurt no one. And for me even domain name multilingualaism and
content
> related IPR issues that have clear IG connections are access issues
(access
> is not only infrastructural access). So if IGF has an mandate to look at
> every issues from an access and affordability point of view as well - I
cant
> understand what could be anyone's objection to it. (as they say in
feminist
> literature - everything needs to be seen through a gender lens - if you
are
> seeing it so, you will find the gender elements in practically everything.
> And if you don't want to see, you wont.)

It's a matter of being clear about what fits the category IG and what does
not.
There are many globally pressing issues that don't fit clearly under the
rubric.  Saying that doesn't mean that I/we don't care about them, and
implying
otherwise is not conducive to dialogue.

> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by the third, but am guessing you refer to
> the enhanced cooperation on oversight issues.  I guarantee that the
> US-UK-Canada-Australia and private sector/ISOC will oppose that being in
the
> forum, and as such it probably won't happen, but personally I would be
happy
> to have the caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this
> is discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.  >>>>
>
> But the third - the exclusion of point on critical internet resources - I
> mean simply that para 72 clearly puts it in IGF's mandate to discuss
> ' issues relating to critical Internet resources'. So why are we - CS -
> ignoring it. I cant see how US UK and others are going to oppose it
because
> they signed on the document. The issue is - what we - the CS - have to say
> about it. Are we so mindful of US and UK opposing it that we also let it
> slip from our agenda - even when it is already an agreed commitment - and
> what is needed now from the CS side is to hold governments to their
> commitment.

Well they have opposed it, here in the room and elsewhere.

> I am sorry Bill, but even with your detailed explanation I am unable to
> understand what direction - and what principles and politics - is the IG
> caucus submission to the IGF consultation taking.

And I'm sorry too, I cannot understand why my explanation is unclear to you,
or
why you are inferring and implying things about colleagues that clearly
don't
reflect their thinking.  I say again, you think that the forum should
address
public policy issues for critical resources.  Fine, I'm ok with that.  Let's
see if others agree.  If they don't, ok, views in the caucus are diverse,
and
the challenge then is collegial persuasion.

Best,

Bill




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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 16 07:08:26 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:38:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <43F45E65.4080407@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <200602161205.k1GC5BWv080474@trout.cpsr.org>



Hi Vittorio

>> P.S. In any case, please realize that almost all developed country
governments are strongly opposed to discussing "resources" (ie ICANN
reforms) in the IGF - you'll listen to this tomorrow by the EU Troika as
well, I guess. They want to keep this matter for a separate, possibly
gov-only discussion, as stated in the Tunis Agenda (which calls for a
separate Annan-led process to discuss the "new cooperation model"). So we
might try to push this if we like, but I don't think it will fly. 
Access, of course, is another matter.>>>>


The first issue is how strongly we all believe that public policy issues
related to internet, including critical resources issues, should be
discussed by IGF. My impression all along was that IG caucus, CS generally,
WGIG and most developing countries wanted IGF precisely to discuss the
complete range of Internet related public issues. 

However, I am hearing convoluted views on this list now, that makes me
wonder if I had got it right. Please correct me if I am wrong - was IGF not
always supposed to be an open-ended Internet related public policies
discussion space. 

If not this, what is it supposed to be. Alternatively, I can only think of
the infamous Canadian 'capacity building' IGF.

And this thing about 'incorporating WSIS principles in IG mechanism' looks a
very weak and unspecific language. Why don't we clearly spell out what are
these principles. Otherwise anyone can get away with claiming that they have
incorporated wsis principles. And there are all kinds of WSIS principles -
look at the rhetoric of the opening parts of the Geneva DOP - are we asking
for incorporating that - free access for information for all, where everyone
can use knowledge..... kind of stuff.

Or if we are speaking of specific parts in Tunis agenda of IGF - well that's
exactly what I too want - all the issues of public policy discussion, taking
up issues regarding critical internet resources, access and affordability
are there in Tunis agenda. 

And if not these, please clarify which exactly the WSIS principles to be
incorporated in IG mechanisms that we are talking about.... is this just
about multi-stakeholders and CS participation. Participation in what and to
what avail ???

>>> So we might try to push this if we like, but I don't think it will
fly.>>

Since when CS takes up issues just on the basis whether they'd fly. We took
up Human rights in Tunis. Did it fly. The issue is whether we believe in
these issues and how strongly we believe. And if there is strong opposition,
we need only to put up issues more strongly, rather than say lets not press
it too hard since we are unlikely to succeed. 

In this present context we have tunis agenda which is signed by these
Northern governments and which mentions all the issues we propose to take.
And there will be developing countries pushing for it as well. So why are we
treating it as a battle already lost....

Regards

Parminder 


  

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:44 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'William Drake'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
elements of IGF functions ommitted

Parminder ha scritto:
> I had clearly stated the logic behind what I said. The 6 points in
> Jeanette's proposal (that, as you say, came from your Malta submission)
are
> lifted ad verbatim from the points in para 72 of tunis agenda. So, not to
> pick the first point in this para which speaks of IF as a place for
Internet
> related public policy discussion, and the other two points on access to
> Internet, and taking up issues related to critical Internet resources, is
> quite glaring. 
> 
> And neither her nor your email explains how these 3 most important issues
> were not picked, and other 6 picked.

Now that this misunderstanding has been cleared, I suggest we write text 
that reflects both Bill's point on stressing the importance of the 
"embodiment of the WSIS principles in IG mechanisms", which is extremely 
important for us, and your point on access.

Generally speaking, I know that different people in the caucus and 
elsewhere in CS have different priorities - some are desperate about 
access and resources, others are desperate about rights, others about 
procedural problems. We should not struggle to affirm any of this over 
the others, we should stress them all and most importantly try to ensure 
that the IGF is built as a mechanism that allows all different souls of 
CS to push the creation of different working groups on each of their pet 
issues, and work in parallel on each of them.

If we succeed, the result is likely to be massive, thanks to our usual 
winning weapon - running faster and longer than the other stakeholders.

And now that I've got your attention, this is the link to my IETF-like 
model for the IGF as contributed yesterday:
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/An%20implementation%20proposal%20fo
r%20the%20IGF.pdf
which I suspect quite similar to proposals by other people such as 
Milton (the IGP) and Avri.


P.S. In any case, please realize that almost all developed country 
governments are strongly opposed to discussing "resources" (ie ICANN 
reforms) in the IGF - you'll listen to this tomorrow by the EU Troika as 
well, I guess. They want to keep this matter for a separate, possibly 
gov-only discussion, as stated in the Tunis Agenda (which calls for a 
separate Annan-led process to discuss the "new cooperation model"). So 
we might try to push this if we like, but I don't think it will fly. 
Access, of course, is another matter.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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


From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Thu Feb 16 07:32:19 2006
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:32:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEDGGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <A0E19BF31237DE4A9B1FF1E122FAC13A16302B63@ADMCLUSTER.njitdm.campus.njit.edu>
	<MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEDGGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <131293a20602160432x5123e9d5sb8cd7ba69349628a@mail.gmail.com>

Hi
Access and affrodability IMO are not IG issues, but many of the ways in
which they can or cannot be handled are: for example interconnection rates,
south-south traffic, FLOSS
This is why it came out as a cross-cutting issue. It's a principle that
needs to be stated - we have internet governance to ensure the principles -
the stability & security of the Internet, human rights, access, etc.
Jacqueline

On 2/16/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Karen and I have gone around on this a bit since WGIG.  While it is of
> course an issue of paramount importance, I don't see access as an IG
> issue,
> there are no applicable international shared rule systems, it's a function
> of heterogeneous and uncoordinated national policies and corporate
> decisions.  Accordingly, it hasn't really been treated as such in
> WGIG/WSIS.
> Of course, one could say there should be international rules, but that's
> different, and I would think there is an obligation to say just what such
> rules might consist of.   I know Milton agrees with me and think some
> others
> did when this came up previously. There also arguably would be some danger
> of implying that international telecom rules, such as the ITU's treaty
> instruments, that are supposed to encourage telephone access, apply to the
> Internet.   Clearly it's an issue meriting further consideration and
> people
> can reasonably disagree on it.  We can talk about this in our drafting
> meeting today, but I don't think we'll reach a hard consensus on the point
> in the time available.  Maybe there's some mention that could be worked
> out
> to connect with and support APC's statement without declaring full stop
> that
> the caucus all agrees this is an IG issue per se.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Gurstein, Michael
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:49 PM
> > To: Governance Caucus
> > Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
> >
> >
> > As I expected, but a bit earlier than I assumed, mission creep
> > for the IGF has already been initiated and by CS rather than by
> > any of the other actors.
> >
> > I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Karen and Parminder that
> > "access" (and thus "development") issues should be discussed at
> > the IGF--if not there, where; and of course, it is difficult to
> > distinguish issues of "access" and "capacity building" from
> > "development" (and I guess that then means a not too big a lurch
> > over into overall issues of ICT4D, yes?)...
> >
> > BUT, wasn't the division of responsibility to have been Internet
> > Governance/Policy with the IGF and ICT4D with the Global Alliance
> > (whose gestation has been even more lengthy and wrapped in
> > shrouds of UN intrigue--an "extensive consultation",
> > hmmm...--than the IGF...
> >
> > Again, maybe it would be best to have all the issues addressed in
> > the IGF and leave the GA to moulder with the other "high level
> > but participative UN blah blah's", but if that is the case, then
> > the responsibilities that flow from that, and for everyone
> > including (or especially) CS folks to figure out and make
> > representations around all the issues of inclusion,
> > "representivity", support mechanisms for participation, a
> > possible role in direct policy development and even project
> > implementation etc.etc. (which flows more or less directly from
> > including the ICT4D "mandate") rears its head more or less immediately.
> >
> > That is, CS like everyone else can't have it both ways--having
> > all the issues of importance (to the various components of CS) on
> > the table in the IGF, without at the same time recognizing that
> > some of those issues have much much broader constituencies and
> > much more immediate physical impacts on folks on the ground than
> > the rather more rarified (and dare I say "virtual") issues of
> > things like spam and the allocations of responsibilities within
> > the DNS, and that this being the case, maintaining the IGF as a
> > rather exclusive talk shop for Internet (and travel funded)
> > cognoscenti isn't going to (ahem) fly.
> >
> > MG
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
> > Sent: February 15, 2006 10:41 AM
> > To: Jeanette Hofmann; Governance Caucus
> > Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
> >
> >
> > hi
> >
> > i've looked over very quickly and can support
> > everything here - we would have additional points
> > to make, or would emphasize some points more than
> > others, but can do so in a separate intervention.
> >
> > the two points i would add, or, think are missing
> > - are the importance of a rights based approach
> > to the forum (with specific reference to privacy
> > and freedom of expression) and the importance of
> > an overriding development orientation to the work
> > of the IGF (i don't see any reference to
> > developing country priorities in this text,
> > excepting that of capacity building and
> > participation - which are of course important,
> > but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)
> >
> > anyway, if this is too difficult - i can raise in our intervention..
> >
> > APC will post it's survey response today, very
> > late.. and i'll post a copy here..
> >
> > In some ways, we are still thinking, so the
> > responses are not necessarily final final positions or perspectives ..
> >
> > karen
> >
> > At 22:48 14/02/2006, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > >Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual
> > >very late, a potential caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> > >
> > >*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or
> > >which parts need further editing or should be
> > >deleted because they are controversial.
> > >
> > >*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome
> > >too.
> > >
> > >Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good
> > >if somebody - perhaps somebody already in
> > >Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> > >
> > >-------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> > >
> > >
> > >*       Added Value: The goal of the forum is to
> > >add value to the existing institutional
> > >arrangements relevant to Internet governance by
> > >extending participation to a broader community
> > >and by improving the quality of dialogue,
> > >discussion and development in this field.
> > >
> > >*       Capacity-building: The IGF must
> > >contribute to building capacity in Internet
> > >governance amongst all stakeholders directly
> > >engaged in Internet Governance and ICT policy
> > >issues as well as within the wider communities
> > >affected by them. The IGF must overcome the
> > >specific barriers to effective participation, in
> > >particular from developing countries, found in
> > >the current institutional structures of Internet Governance.
> > >
> > >*       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness:
> > >The forum must be open to the participation of
> > >all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> > >including governments, private sector, civil
> > >society and international organizations. The
> > >multi-stakeholder approach should not only be
> > >applied to the forum but to all bodies and
> > >processes related to the forum such as the
> > >secretariat and a potential program committee.
> > >
> > >*       Inclusiveness and remote participation:
> > >Physical attendance should not be required for
> > >participation. In order to strengthen the
> > >inclusiveness of its collaboration, the forum
> > >should integrate new forms of remote
> > >participation to enable contributions from
> > >stakeholders who are unable to attend in person.
> > >
> > >*       Equality of participation: It is vital
> > >to the legitimacy of the forum that all
> > >stakeholders participate on an equal basis.
> > >Since the forum is expected to act as a
> > >facilitating body without binding decision
> > >making capacity, equal footing for all
> > >participants is the most effective working
> > >principle to enable high quality results.
> > >
> > >*       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be
> > >free to choose its topics as it considers
> > >appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet
> > >Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch
> > >upon the responsibilities and competences of
> > >existing organizations. However, the forum
> > >should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF
> > >will function as a facilitator that promotes
> > >enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies
> > >by generating and diffusing "best-practice" and
> > >"lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> > >
> > >*       Forum as process: The forum should be
> > >designed as an ongoing process with most of its
> > >work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> > >thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to
> > >face meetings should constitute just one element in this process.
> > >
> > >*       Accessible location: The highest
> > >priority in choosing locations for the forum
> > >should be accessibility to all potential
> > >participants. In considering perspective
> > >locations issues such as: proximity to
> > >governmental missions and the local hotel and
> > >transit infrastructure should be balanced with
> > >concerns about travel costs and the availability of entrance visas.
> > >
> > >*       Transparency: For the sake of its
> > >legitimacy, the forum must take an open and
> > >transparent approach to its structure,
> > >procedures, membership and to all of its
> > >deliberations and recommendations. The forum
> > >must publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> > >
> > >
> > >II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> > >
> > >
> > >The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
> > >calls on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to
> > >play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> > >relation to existing Internet governance
> > >mechanisms.  Among other things, the Forum should:
> > >
> > >*       Facilitate the exchange of information
> > >and best practices between bodies dealing with
> > >different international public policies
> > >regarding the Internet and discuss issues that
> > >do not fall within the scope of any existing
> > >body. In this regard the Forum should make full
> > >use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical
> > communities;
> > >
> > >ï'§     Interface: with appropriate
> > >inter-governmental organizations and other
> > >institutions on matters under their purview;
> > >
> > >ï'§     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of
> > >stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet
> > >Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
> > >
> > >ï'§     Identify emerging issues, bring them to
> > >the attention of the relevant bodies and the
> > >general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
> > >
> > >*       Contribute to capacity-building for
> > >Internet Governance in developing countries,
> > >drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> > >
> > >*       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis,
> > >the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.
> > >
> > >
> > >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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>



--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060216/be027c2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU  Thu Feb 16 07:51:17 2006
From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:51:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
Message-ID: <A0E19BF31237DE4A9B1FF1E122FAC13A163034B6@ADMCLUSTER.njitdm.campus.njit.edu>

Again, I'm at this point neutral as to whether "access" as such should be discussed in the context of the IGF or elsewhere, however, it should be recognized that for many, and I would say for most governments at least, "access" (i.e. understood as the "Digital Divide") is the basic, if not the only issue that they understand in the context of ICT4D.

Their position, and to some extent I would say, their honest belief is that once the "access" issue is resolved their responsibility is complete--certainly that has been the position of my own (the Canadian) government, since these discussions began in the early '90's.

What that implies for me is that IF the "access" discussion creeps into the framework of discussion within the IGF that will mean absenting this discussion (or at least a number of the key players) from its being dealt with in other venues (duplication blah blah... 

Nothing wrong with that except that the venue where that discussion is taking place should then become the focus for the full range of "Development" related issues (follow the money) and including a very significant responsibility on the part of CS to include the range of actors, issues, voices that are directly concerned with ICT4D issues something which is clearly not the case at this point and seems to be something which is being and has been actively resisted not only by Governments but also by our CS colleagues.

MG


-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: February 16, 2006 11:54 AM
To: 'William Drake'; Gurstein, Michael; 'Governance Caucus'
Subject: RE: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva


Hi Michael and Bill,

As I proposed in an earlier email 'access and affordability' of internet is not only an infrastructural issues - but has many many more implications - many of them still not very clear at this stage of evolution of Internet. This is the reason to keep these issues in IGF, though infrastructural issues can also have some implication here - like in interconnection costs. 

As for Michael's either-or formulation - whether access should be discussed in IGF or at global alliance kind of ICTD forums - the idea is not to shift all ICTD discussion of 'access and affordability' to IGF. Discretion will of course prevail - and IGF would need to take up only those issues of access and affordability that are clearly connected to other IG issues. Some overlap though may happen, and we can live with it. 

Regards

Parminder 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:20 PM
To: Gurstein, Michael; Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

Hi,

Karen and I have gone around on this a bit since WGIG.  While it is of course an issue of paramount importance, I don't see access as an IG issue, there are no applicable international shared rule systems, it's a function of heterogeneous and uncoordinated national policies and corporate decisions.  Accordingly, it hasn't really been treated as such in WGIG/WSIS. Of course, one could say there should be international rules, but that's different, and I would think there is an obligation to say just what such
rules might consist of.   I know Milton agrees with me and think some others
did when this came up previously. There also arguably would be some danger of implying that international telecom rules, such as the ITU's treaty instruments, that are supposed to encourage telephone access, apply to the
Internet.   Clearly it's an issue meriting further consideration and people
can reasonably disagree on it.  We can talk about this in our drafting meeting today, but I don't think we'll reach a hard consensus on the point in the time available.  Maybe there's some mention that could be worked out to connect with and support APC's statement without declaring full stop that the caucus all agrees this is an IG issue per se.

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Gurstein, 
> Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:49 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
>
>
> As I expected, but a bit earlier than I assumed, mission creep for the 
> IGF has already been initiated and by CS rather than by any of the 
> other actors.
>
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Karen and Parminder that "access" 
> (and thus "development") issues should be discussed at the IGF--if not 
> there, where; and of course, it is difficult to distinguish issues of 
> "access" and "capacity building" from "development" (and I guess that 
> then means a not too big a lurch over into overall issues of ICT4D, 
> yes?)...
>
> BUT, wasn't the division of responsibility to have been Internet 
> Governance/Policy with the IGF and ICT4D with the Global Alliance 
> (whose gestation has been even more lengthy and wrapped in shrouds of 
> UN intrigue--an "extensive consultation", hmmm...--than the IGF...
>
> Again, maybe it would be best to have all the issues addressed in the 
> IGF and leave the GA to moulder with the other "high level but 
> participative UN blah blah's", but if that is the case, then the 
> responsibilities that flow from that, and for everyone including (or 
> especially) CS folks to figure out and make representations around all 
> the issues of inclusion, "representivity", support mechanisms for 
> participation, a possible role in direct policy development and even 
> project implementation etc.etc. (which flows more or less directly 
> from including the ICT4D "mandate") rears its head more or less 
> immediately.
>
> That is, CS like everyone else can't have it both ways--having all the 
> issues of importance (to the various components of CS) on the table in 
> the IGF, without at the same time recognizing that some of those 
> issues have much much broader constituencies and much more immediate 
> physical impacts on folks on the ground than the rather more rarified 
> (and dare I say "virtual") issues of things like spam and the 
> allocations of responsibilities within the DNS, and that this being 
> the case, maintaining the IGF as a rather exclusive talk shop for 
> Internet (and travel funded) cognoscenti isn't going to (ahem) fly.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
> Sent: February 15, 2006 10:41 AM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann; Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
>
>
> hi
>
> i've looked over very quickly and can support
> everything here - we would have additional points
> to make, or would emphasize some points more than
> others, but can do so in a separate intervention.
>
> the two points i would add, or, think are missing
> - are the importance of a rights based approach
> to the forum (with specific reference to privacy
> and freedom of expression) and the importance of
> an overriding development orientation to the work
> of the IGF (i don't see any reference to
> developing country priorities in this text,
> excepting that of capacity building and
> participation - which are of course important,
> but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)
>
> anyway, if this is too difficult - i can raise in our intervention..
>
> APC will post it's survey response today, very
> late.. and i'll post a copy here..
>
> In some ways, we are still thinking, so the
> responses are not necessarily final final positions or perspectives ..
>
> karen
>
> At 22:48 14/02/2006, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual
> >very late, a potential caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> >
> >*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or
> >which parts need further editing or should be
> >deleted because they are controversial.
> >
> >*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are welcome 
> >too.
> >
> >Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good
> >if somebody - perhaps somebody already in
> >Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> >
> >
> >*       Added Value: The goal of the forum is to
> >add value to the existing institutional
> >arrangements relevant to Internet governance by
> >extending participation to a broader community
> >and by improving the quality of dialogue,
> >discussion and development in this field.
> >
> >*       Capacity-building: The IGF must
> >contribute to building capacity in Internet
> >governance amongst all stakeholders directly
> >engaged in Internet Governance and ICT policy
> >issues as well as within the wider communities
> >affected by them. The IGF must overcome the
> >specific barriers to effective participation, in
> >particular from developing countries, found in
> >the current institutional structures of Internet Governance.
> >
> >*       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness:
> >The forum must be open to the participation of
> >all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> >including governments, private sector, civil
> >society and international organizations. The multi-stakeholder 
> >approach should not only be applied to the forum but to all bodies 
> >and processes related to the forum such as the
> >secretariat and a potential program committee.
> >
> >*       Inclusiveness and remote participation:
> >Physical attendance should not be required for participation. In 
> >order to strengthen the inclusiveness of its collaboration, the forum
> >should integrate new forms of remote
> >participation to enable contributions from
> >stakeholders who are unable to attend in person.
> >
> >*       Equality of participation: It is vital
> >to the legitimacy of the forum that all
> >stakeholders participate on an equal basis.
> >Since the forum is expected to act as a
> >facilitating body without binding decision
> >making capacity, equal footing for all
> >participants is the most effective working
> >principle to enable high quality results.
> >
> >*       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be
> >free to choose its topics as it considers
> >appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet
> >Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch
> >upon the responsibilities and competences of
> >existing organizations. However, the forum
> >should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF
> >will function as a facilitator that promotes
> >enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies
> >by generating and diffusing "best-practice" and
> >"lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> >
> >*       Forum as process: The forum should be
> >designed as an ongoing process with most of its
> >work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> >thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to
> >face meetings should constitute just one element in this process.
> >
> >*       Accessible location: The highest
> >priority in choosing locations for the forum
> >should be accessibility to all potential
> >participants. In considering perspective
> >locations issues such as: proximity to
> >governmental missions and the local hotel and
> >transit infrastructure should be balanced with
> >concerns about travel costs and the availability of entrance visas.
> >
> >*       Transparency: For the sake of its
> >legitimacy, the forum must take an open and
> >transparent approach to its structure,
> >procedures, membership and to all of its
> >deliberations and recommendations. The forum
> >must publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> >
> >
> >II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> >
> >
> >The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
> >calls on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to
> >play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> >relation to existing Internet governance
> >mechanisms.  Among other things, the Forum should:
> >
> >*       Facilitate the exchange of information
> >and best practices between bodies dealing with
> >different international public policies
> >regarding the Internet and discuss issues that
> >do not fall within the scope of any existing
> >body. In this regard the Forum should make full
> >use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical
> communities;
> >
> >ï'§     Interface: with appropriate
> >inter-governmental organizations and other
> >institutions on matters under their purview;
> >
> >ï'§     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of
> >stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet
> >Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
> >
> >ï'§     Identify emerging issues, bring them to
> >the attention of the relevant bodies and the
> >general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
> >
> >*       Contribute to capacity-building for
> >Internet Governance in developing countries,
> >drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> >
> >*       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis,
> >the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.
> >
> >
> >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
>


_______________________________________________
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


From aizu at anr.org  Thu Feb 16 07:19:12 2006
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:19:12 +0900
Subject: [governance] Meeting on preparation of IGFmeeting in Greece -
 15 February
In-Reply-To: <43EF3D0B.5020702@bertola.eu.org>
References: <200602080839.k188ddwB020548@homer2.tic.ch>
	<1139578586.7290.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060210083923.03841ec8@veni.com>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20060212105620.06d172b0@anr.org>
	<43EF3D0B.5020702@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060216202855.09e09d10@anr.org>

I spoke with Greek government rep on this today in Geneva at IGF consultation
meeting, and he denied that to move to Rhodes, it will remain in Athens.

izumi

At 14:50 06/02/12 +0100, you wrote:

>Speaking with the Greek government, I would also add one more concern
>with the rumour reported by Wolfgang, about the meeting being hosted not
>in Athens but in Rhodes... which would mean for non-Europeans (and for
>many Europeans as well!) one or two flights to a major European hub,
>then one more flight to Athens, then one more domestic flight to Rhodes.
>It would take me about 15 hours of travel from Torino, Italy... just
>imagine from Far East, Africa or Latin America.


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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Thu Feb 16 09:41:55 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:41:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] Meeting on preparation of IGFmeeting in Greece -
 15 February
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060216202855.09e09d10@anr.org>
References: <200602080839.k188ddwB020548@homer2.tic.ch>	<1139578586.7290.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060210083923.03841ec8@veni.com>	<6.2.0.14.2.20060212105620.06d172b0@anr.org>	<43EF3D0B.5020702@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20060216202855.09e09d10@anr.org>
Message-ID: <43F48F33.6070108@lists.privaterra.org>

Izumi AIZU wrote:
> I spoke with Greek government rep on this today in Geneva at IGF consultation
> meeting, and he denied that to move to Rhodes, it will remain in Athens.
>
> izumi
>
>   
Has any mention been made of the Hungarian offer to host the
secretarait? They had been lobbying several governments, yet little to
no news has made the CS lists yet.


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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Thu Feb 16 09:47:38 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:47:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <f31ae3560602160325w77af7a10qea624c75298b9de4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEDGGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
	<200602161051.k1GApBPh073770@trout.cpsr.org>
	<f31ae3560602160325w77af7a10qea624c75298b9de4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1140101258.43f4908abbc76@heimail.unige.ch>

We just said precisely that

BD

Quoting "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" <apeake at gmail.com>:

> I thought one of the principles we agreed on for the forum was that
> any stakeholder could raise any issue. Or are we now saying some
> issues are off limits?
>
> Adam
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
*******************************************************


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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Thu Feb 16 09:54:19 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:54:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
 elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <0IUS003UF3G7Y6@romeo.unige.ch>
References: <0IUS003UF3G7Y6@romeo.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <1140101659.43f4921b4dd7c@heimail.unige.ch>

Hi Parminder

> Bill
>
> I have no issues with your Malta presentation - it is a personal thing, and
> of course can legitimately have one angle stressed more than others - as
> presentations in specific contexts need to do.....
>
> My reference to glaring omission is just regarding the proposed IG caucus
> submission to the crucial IGF meeting.... and the general 'acceptance'
> building around it.....

Some text was cut and paste in for possible inclusion and further development,
there was no general acceptance or under the table agendas, it was a initial
text dump.

We have given up on writing a caucus statement or intervening as the caucus.

> >> I say again, you think that the forum should address
> public policy issues for critical resources.  Fine, I'm ok with that.  Let's
> see if others agree.  If they don't, ok, views in the caucus are diverse,
> and
> the challenge then is collegial persuasion.>>>
>
> Yes, this is important. I would like to know who all do not agree that
> public policy issues for critical resources should not be discussed in the
> IGF. Just to know people's views that all.... because that is a bit
> surprising for me that there are people here who believe so. I am very eager
> to hear their logic for it.

We discussed this in the caucus meeting and Milton just made an intervention
(reflecting just the views of us here, not labeled as a caucus statement)
saying no issue should be taken off the table, everything should be open to
transparent multistakeholder discussion, including public policy principles.

Best,

BD


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


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Feb 16 11:27:50 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:27:50 -0500
Subject: [governance] Milton Mueller comments during the consultation
Message-ID: <s3f461d6.082@gwia201.syr.edu>

For those of you not here:

==================

The Chairman did a masterful job of summarizing the discussion and placing some questions on the table. Many of the questions dealt with the specifics of institutional design. I note that IGP issued a paper that answers many of those questions. It proposed a specific structure, with defined role for Plenary, a "bureau" or "program committee" and a bottom-up process for recognizing topics for IGF activities. We envision IGF as an ongoing process with annual meetings as a capstone. 

I want to spend most of my intervention on one of Desai's statements. 

* "themes * there seems to be reasonable agreement"

I heard a lot of disagreement about appropriate themes or topics. It wasn't just that different people proposed different ideas, (spam, cybercrime, and so on) but that speakers raised fundamentally different principles regarding what should be considered a suitable topic. 

Some commentators would like the IGF to take on pub policy principles for coordination of Internet resources. Others claim that the Forum should not discuss divisive issues and that there should be no overlap with other organizations. 

A well organized forum is a way of bridging divisive issues and finding solutions to them. If we attempt to prevent the forum from discussing anything in the domain of another IGO, we will eliminate almost everything from its agenda. Instead of ms cooperation, we will invite constant struggles over turf. The IGF will simply become a proxy battle for intergovernmental turf wars. This would cripple it.

The WSIS Agenda settles this debate:

§	Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. 
It does not say "some" key elements of IG. Because the IGF has no decision making or legislative authority, there is no reason to prevent it from discussing anything.
§	Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet
§	Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview

There is no reason to prevent it from discussing any topic in internet governance that a significant number of stakeholders think should be discussed.

If you can get good discussion, agreement, around key policy issues here in the forum, it will spill over into other forums. It will not harm or duplicate or pre-empt those other venues, it will help them. It's the only place to do it. 

Our job is to define a process, a generalized process, for establishing topics that the IGF will take up. The nature of those topics is clearly defined in the WSIS agenda. We must not allow specific topics to be suppressed. 


Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org



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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Thu Feb 16 11:51:17 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:51:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] BD IGF intervention notes fyi
Message-ID: <1140108677.43f4ad85afd7c@heimail.unige.ch>


Three points

1.  Substantive Focus.

Since early in Phase I, the WSIS Principles have been routinely repeated and
endorsed---international management of the Internet should be multilateral,
transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the
private sector, civil society and international organizations [i.e.
multistakeholder].

The Tunis Agenda gives the IGF an unambiguous mandate to,  “Promote and assess,
on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance
processes” within existing Internet governance mechanisms.

Horizontal assessment of this kind essential to promoting more effective,
inclusive, broadly supported IG; Forum should play a catalytic role by taking
holistic view of the range of governance mechanisms, foster understanding and
participation, raising awareness about possible enhancements/improvements

This implies ongoing monitoring and assessment of developments in those
mechanisms, and close working relations with them.  The Agenda is equally clear
on these points when it says the IGF is to:

b)	Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting
international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do
not fall within the scope of any existing body;
c)	Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other
institutions on matters under their purview;
d)	Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard
make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical
communities;
f)	Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or
future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
countries;
g)	Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies
and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations


Presumably, the governments that carefully and laboriously negotiated and then
approved this language meant what they said.  If so, then there should be no
controversy about establishing a process under the IGF to carry out this
mandate.  Nevertheless, interventions made so far on substantive issues to be
addressed have not mentioned carrying this forward; instead, vertically
segmented issues.

So Question: do we take seriously the Tunis Agenda mandate, or set it aside?


2.  Nature of the Forum

IGF has been referred to as an “event” or “a meeting,” sounds like series of
one-off sessions on different topics, sort of like ITU WTPFs, with some online
dialogue in between.  We have also heard it said there should not be subsidiary
bodies.

Many of us in CS have generally understood it differently, more as an ongoing
process that would promote collective dialogue, learning and mutual
understanding.  IGF as an umbrella under which various initiatives could be
formed bottom up basis by concerned stakeholders.  Working Groups, e.g. a WG on
Application of the WSIS Principles.  Other initiatives include the IG Research
Network (Wolfgang will explain.)

WGs etc particularly important if secretariat itself does not have independent
research capacity.


3.  Convening and Coordinating

In interventions and documents in Tunis and prior, IGC has supported the view
that the IGF should convened under authority of UN SG, coordinated by UN, the
most inclusive and neutral forum.





*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
*******************************************************


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


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Thu Feb 16 12:01:20 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:01:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] BD IGF intervention notes fyi
In-Reply-To: <1140108677.43f4ad85afd7c@heimail.unige.ch>
References: <1140108677.43f4ad85afd7c@heimail.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <43F4AFE0.5060002@bertola.eu.org>

William Drake ha scritto:
> Three points

I don't have electronic text to copy (I had the usual piece of paper all 
scrabbled with notes) but I'd like to point out that scribing is being 
made available as soon as the session ends, on www.intgovforum.org, for 
anyone interested in reading what was said.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 12:31:10 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:31:10 +0300
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <200602161144.k1GBirnN079999@trout.cpsr.org>
References: <1140088037.43f45ce51cf68@heimail.unige.ch>
	<200602161144.k1GBirnN079999@trout.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0602160931s9bb1729k63b684bf01559641@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> <snip>

Yes, this is important. I would like to know who all do not agree that
> public policy issues for critical resources should not be discussed in the
>
> IGF.


I think you can count me in on that one.

Just to know people's views that all.... because that is a bit
> surprising for me that there are people here who believe so.


Why? If you participated in the current bottom up, open to all, consensus
driven IG mechanisms, I think you would not be surprised at all. They are a
model of what CS wants from such processes (open, transparent,
e-participation enabled, etc).


> I am very eager
> to hear their logic for it.


A) It would be a waste of time, money and effort, as these discussions are
ongoing in other fora.  Duplication is what we want to avoid IMO.

B) I don't think the IGF can do IG better than the current bodies.

C) I am sure that IGF participants will not be interested in the nitty
gritty "technical" issues that IG resource folk talk about.  At least on
this list whenever anything remotely technical comes up, there are only a
few who don't bury thier heads in the sand.

For example, here is an excerpt form a mail I just read posted to a public
policy list concerning Internet resources:


<excerpt>

I think an approach to lat/long PI addressing such as your
draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-09.txt may be a solid foundation for choosing the PI
block to assign to each individual organization.  However, I think your
draft-hain-ipv6 -pi-addr-use-09.txt proposals, and previous discussion of
similar ideas on PPML, have over-engineered the use cases and the
implications for routing and exchange points.  In particular, I read your
drafts as requiring that all ISPs in a region would have to agree on the
level of aggregation for the region and that all ISPs in that region
interconnect at an exchange point, and also encouraging ISPs to filter
more-specifics heard from their peers based on how many routes each origin
AS announces and/or a certain prefix length.  I think that all these
requirements/suggestions are unnecessarily restrictive stipulations that
encourage unnecessary opposition to the proposal.

Here's what I see as a more realistic application of Geo PI:

 - Implement some sort of geography-based PI addressing scheme, either one
like draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-09.txt, a population-based scheme like Michael
Dillon has advocated, or something more like our current system, where RIRs
allocate PI blocks to individual companies, but choose the particular
netblock to allocate based on one of the schemes above.  (I'm not sure which
of those approaches is superior, but we can debate the merits of each
separately.)
 - Initially, multihomed organizations allocated PI space would probably
route them the exact same way they do IPv4 PI space today, announcing it in
BGP to their transit providers, who would advertise it to everyone on the
planet with a full BGP feed (the DFZ).
 - At some future point, some global tier 1 NSPs* may decide that the
routing table growth is causing problems for their routers.  At that point,
they can begin aggregating PI space within their own network, such that
within a region (which could be a BGP confederation sub-AS, for example) all

more-specifics for that region are carried, but only the PI aggregate is
carried outside the region.  In order for an tier 1 NSP to do this
effectively, they would have to ensure that all of their peers have at least

two peering points within the region (private peering or exchanged-based, it
doesn't matter), so that their peers can reach them and their customers' PI
more-specifics for that region.
 - For transit customers outside the aggregated region, the tier 1 NSP would
be able to just advertise the PI aggregate.  For peers who only peer outside
the region, the NSP could do one of several things: they could simply
advertise the peer their PI aggregate, which opens the possibility of
providing transit connectivity to the peer; they could carry all
more-specifics from the aggregated region to the peering router(s), which
would probably require a multihop BGP session or a tunnel; or they could
simply not advertise routes from the aggregated region to their peer outside
that region, requiring the peer to set up a peering point within the
aggregated region or buy transit connectivity for traffic to that region.
 - When two or more NSPs set up such aggregation, a customer multi-homed to
both NSPs would be able to announce their PI deaggregate to their transit
providers just as they do now.  Anyone trying to reach the customer from
within the region (or from an NSP that doesn't aggregate) would be able to
choose between the two resulting BGP paths.  Anyone trying to reach the
customer from outside the region would see the customer's IP space as part
of a regional aggregate, and would route their traffic towards the region.
Once the traffic arrived at the region, it would reach a router which would
be able to choose between the two deaggregated paths, based on the BGP
metrics (localpref, AS path, MEDs, etc.) set by the origin AS.
 - If the two NSPs the customer multi-homes to decide to aggregate
differently, it might affect the traffic balance inbound to the multi-homed
customer, but the customer will still have the leeway to adjust their
announcements to compensate.  For example, if NSP A aggregates a smaller
region to a /32, and NSP B aggregates a larger region to a /28, then traffic
from outside the larger region would prefer NSP A, while traffic from the
in-between region would prefer NSP B, as the route would still be a
deaggregate over NSP B in that region.  Once traffic reached the smaller
region, the origin AS's BGP metrics would take over.

My point here is not that NSPs have to do things this way, but rather that a
geography-based PI allocation scheme allows them to continue operating with
the current model as long as they want to, and also gives them the
flexibility to begin gradually aggregating PI space within their network as
they see fit (for example by starting with large regions like continents, an
later aggregating on a more regional basis as needed).  We can implement
such a geography-based PI allocation scheme *without* requiring everyone (or
anyone) in a region to set up new interconnections, and without requiring
anyone to coordinate the precise size of aggregated regions (and thereby the

length of aggregate prefixes).  IMO that makes it *much* more likely that
such a system could reach consensus and actually get implemented.

</excerpt>


Now, I think this discussion is fascinating, and crucial to the stability
of future internetworking.  How many people in Tunisia would;

A) be interested enough to read the entire post let alone dozens of similar
ones daily on dozens of lists? (or be motivated enough to do the research to
learn?)

B) know what the post was saying and could fit that into the schema of
global coordination of such resources?

With respect to B, I think the Canadians Prepcom3 proposal about capacity
building was spot on.  The existing fora work well.  Unfortunately, from
a bottom up perspective it is a very narrow bottom, so IGF capacity building
is key IMO in expanding that bottom.

It is clear that the current bodies are keen to work with the IGF.  However,
if the IGF recommends smt contrary to the best interests of the communities
that make up the current bodies, count on those recommendations to be
largely ignored.


--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060216/ee585261/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Feb 16 15:48:34 2006
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:48:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
In-Reply-To: <131293a20602160432x5123e9d5sb8cd7ba69349628a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOMEDGGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <43F50142.13004.6CBAC6C2@anriette.apc.org>

Hallo all

Those of you in Geneva are probably just getting into the caucus meeting...

1 - On the access issue:

Yes, we did highlight this in the APC submission.  We did not propose at exactly what 
depth we believe the IGF should address it.

As Parminder and others have pointed out, you cannot delink it from rights.

And as Jacqueline points out, it is crosscutting and will inform how we approach other 
issues.

>From my perspective this is so simple.  It is about inequity, and trying to change it.  It is 
about rights, and understanding what we mean by them and trying to make sure that 
people everywhere have access to these rights without glaring disparities.

Challenging disparities, exclusion, injustice should be part of ALL our work.  Different 
institutions, communities, disciplines etc. will address it differently and to greater or 
lesser degrees.  But, if one's work is not informed by the awareness of inequity that is 
the equivalent of pretending it does not exist, or is not 'our business'. 

2 - On capacity building
I would like there to be mention of the need to build the capacity of the IG community in 
the developed world to be able to understand how IG issues relate to development 
issues and vice versa... the examples mentioned by Jacqueline would be a good 
starting point.

I find the constant assumption that the capacity of the south should be built to catch up 
with the north rather patronising.  But, I do not deny the need to build capacity in places, 
and among people where access to opportunities are limited.

But we live in one diverse world.  To be effective in it we all need to learn.

Anriette



> Hi
> Access and affrodability IMO are not IG issues, but many of the ways
> in which they can or cannot be handled are: for example
> interconnection rates, south-south traffic, FLOSS This is why it came
> out as a cross-cutting issue. It's a principle that needs to be stated
> - we have internet governance to ensure the principles - the stability
> & security of the Internet, human rights, access, etc. Jacqueline
> 
> On 2/16/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Karen and I have gone around on this a bit since WGIG.  While it is
> > of course an issue of paramount importance, I don't see access as an
> > IG issue, there are no applicable international shared rule systems,
> > it's a function of heterogeneous and uncoordinated national policies
> > and corporate decisions.  Accordingly, it hasn't really been treated
> > as such in WGIG/WSIS. Of course, one could say there should be
> > international rules, but that's different, and I would think there
> > is an obligation to say just what such rules might consist of.   I
> > know Milton agrees with me and think some others did when this came
> > up previously. There also arguably would be some danger of implying
> > that international telecom rules, such as the ITU's treaty
> > instruments, that are supposed to encourage telephone access, apply
> > to the Internet.   Clearly it's an issue meriting further
> > consideration and people can reasonably disagree on it.  We can talk
> > about this in our drafting meeting today, but I don't think we'll
> > reach a hard consensus on the point in the time available.  Maybe
> > there's some mention that could be worked out to connect with and
> > support APC's statement without declaring full stop that the caucus
> > all agrees this is an IG issue per se.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Gurstein,
> > > Michael Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:49 PM To: Governance
> > > Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention
> > > for Geneva
> > >
> > >
> > > As I expected, but a bit earlier than I assumed, mission creep for
> > > the IGF has already been initiated and by CS rather than by any of
> > > the other actors.
> > >
> > > I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Karen and Parminder that
> > > "access" (and thus "development") issues should be discussed at
> > > the IGF--if not there, where; and of course, it is difficult to
> > > distinguish issues of "access" and "capacity building" from
> > > "development" (and I guess that then means a not too big a lurch
> > > over into overall issues of ICT4D, yes?)...
> > >
> > > BUT, wasn't the division of responsibility to have been Internet
> > > Governance/Policy with the IGF and ICT4D with the Global Alliance
> > > (whose gestation has been even more lengthy and wrapped in shrouds
> > > of UN intrigue--an "extensive consultation", hmmm...--than the
> > > IGF...
> > >
> > > Again, maybe it would be best to have all the issues addressed in
> > > the IGF and leave the GA to moulder with the other "high level but
> > > participative UN blah blah's", but if that is the case, then the
> > > responsibilities that flow from that, and for everyone including
> > > (or especially) CS folks to figure out and make representations
> > > around all the issues of inclusion, "representivity", support
> > > mechanisms for participation, a possible role in direct policy
> > > development and even project implementation etc.etc. (which flows
> > > more or less directly from including the ICT4D "mandate") rears
> > > its head more or less immediately.
> > >
> > > That is, CS like everyone else can't have it both ways--having all
> > > the issues of importance (to the various components of CS) on the
> > > table in the IGF, without at the same time recognizing that some
> > > of those issues have much much broader constituencies and much
> > > more immediate physical impacts on folks on the ground than the
> > > rather more rarified (and dare I say "virtual") issues of things
> > > like spam and the allocations of responsibilities within the DNS,
> > > and that this being the case, maintaining the IGF as a rather
> > > exclusive talk shop for Internet (and travel funded) cognoscenti
> > > isn't going to (ahem) fly.
> > >
> > > MG
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen
> > > banks Sent: February 15, 2006 10:41 AM To: Jeanette Hofmann;
> > > Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus
> > > intervention for Geneva
> > >
> > >
> > > hi
> > >
> > > i've looked over very quickly and can support
> > > everything here - we would have additional points
> > > to make, or would emphasize some points more than
> > > others, but can do so in a separate intervention.
> > >
> > > the two points i would add, or, think are missing
> > > - are the importance of a rights based approach
> > > to the forum (with specific reference to privacy
> > > and freedom of expression) and the importance of
> > > an overriding development orientation to the work
> > > of the IGF (i don't see any reference to
> > > developing country priorities in this text,
> > > excepting that of capacity building and
> > > participation - which are of course important,
> > > but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)
> > >
> > > anyway, if this is too difficult - i can raise in our
> > > intervention..
> > >
> > > APC will post it's survey response today, very
> > > late.. and i'll post a copy here..
> > >
> > > In some ways, we are still thinking, so the
> > > responses are not necessarily final final positions or
> > > perspectives ..
> > >
> > > karen
> > >
> > > At 22:48 14/02/2006, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > > >Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual
> > > >very late, a potential caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting
> > > >it.
> > > >
> > > >*Please let us know if the text is acceptable or
> > > >which parts need further editing or should be
> > > >deleted because they are controversial.
> > > >
> > > >*The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are
> > > >welcome too.
> > > >
> > > >Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good
> > > >if somebody - perhaps somebody already in
> > > >Geneva? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> > > >
> > > >-------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >*       Added Value: The goal of the forum is to
> > > >add value to the existing institutional
> > > >arrangements relevant to Internet governance by
> > > >extending participation to a broader community
> > > >and by improving the quality of dialogue,
> > > >discussion and development in this field.
> > > >
> > > >*       Capacity-building: The IGF must
> > > >contribute to building capacity in Internet
> > > >governance amongst all stakeholders directly
> > > >engaged in Internet Governance and ICT policy
> > > >issues as well as within the wider communities
> > > >affected by them. The IGF must overcome the
> > > >specific barriers to effective participation, in
> > > >particular from developing countries, found in
> > > >the current institutional structures of Internet Governance.
> > > >
> > > >*       Multi-stakeholder approach and openness:
> > > >The forum must be open to the participation of
> > > >all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> > > >including governments, private sector, civil
> > > >society and international organizations. The
> > > >multi-stakeholder approach should not only be
> > > >applied to the forum but to all bodies and
> > > >processes related to the forum such as the
> > > >secretariat and a potential program committee.
> > > >
> > > >*       Inclusiveness and remote participation:
> > > >Physical attendance should not be required for
> > > >participation. In order to strengthen the
> > > >inclusiveness of its collaboration, the forum
> > > >should integrate new forms of remote
> > > >participation to enable contributions from
> > > >stakeholders who are unable to attend in person.
> > > >
> > > >*       Equality of participation: It is vital
> > > >to the legitimacy of the forum that all
> > > >stakeholders participate on an equal basis.
> > > >Since the forum is expected to act as a
> > > >facilitating body without binding decision
> > > >making capacity, equal footing for all
> > > >participants is the most effective working
> > > >principle to enable high quality results.
> > > >
> > > >*       Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be
> > > >free to choose its topics as it considers
> > > >appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet
> > > >Governance are cross-cutting issues, which touch
> > > >upon the responsibilities and competences of
> > > >existing organizations. However, the forum
> > > >should not be seen as their competitor. The IGF
> > > >will function as a facilitator that promotes
> > > >enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies
> > > >by generating and diffusing "best-practice" and
> > > >"lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> > > >
> > > >*       Forum as process: The forum should be
> > > >designed as an ongoing process with most of its
> > > >work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> > > >thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to
> > > >face meetings should constitute just one element in this process.
> > > >
> > > >*       Accessible location: The highest
> > > >priority in choosing locations for the forum
> > > >should be accessibility to all potential
> > > >participants. In considering perspective
> > > >locations issues such as: proximity to
> > > >governmental missions and the local hotel and
> > > >transit infrastructure should be balanced with
> > > >concerns about travel costs and the availability of entrance
> > > >visas.
> > > >
> > > >*       Transparency: For the sake of its
> > > >legitimacy, the forum must take an open and
> > > >transparent approach to its structure,
> > > >procedures, membership and to all of its
> > > >deliberations and recommendations. The forum
> > > >must publish regular and frequent reports detailing its
> > > >activities.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
> > > >calls on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to
> > > >play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> > > >relation to existing Internet governance
> > > >mechanisms.  Among other things, the Forum should:
> > > >
> > > >*       Facilitate the exchange of information
> > > >and best practices between bodies dealing with
> > > >different international public policies
> > > >regarding the Internet and discuss issues that
> > > >do not fall within the scope of any existing
> > > >body. In this regard the Forum should make full
> > > >use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical
> > > communities;
> > > >
> > > >ï'§     Interface: with appropriate
> > > >inter-governmental organizations and other
> > > >institutions on matters under their purview;
> > > >
> > > >ï'§     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of
> > > >stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet
> > > >Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
> > > >countries;
> > > >
> > > >ï'§     Identify emerging issues, bring them to
> > > >the attention of the relevant bodies and the
> > > >general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
> > > >
> > > >*       Contribute to capacity-building for
> > > >Internet Governance in developing countries,
> > > >drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> > > >
> > > >*       Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis,
> > > >the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance
> > > >processes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >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
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > governance mailing list
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Jacqueline Morris
> www.carnivalondenet.com
> T&T Music and videos online
> 



------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692


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


From aizu at anr.org  Thu Feb 16 11:48:45 2006
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:48:45 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Consultation, my memo for the morning
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060217013755.0b0faeb0@anr.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060217/62b2007e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca  Thu Feb 16 20:01:36 2006
From: lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca (lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:01:36 +0000
Subject: [governance] US State Dept.: Statement on Internet as Multiplier
	for Freedom
Message-ID: <BAY15-F1749DB756C3321362B1ADAD5F80@phx.gbl>

FYI
Liss Jeffrey, PhD
Director, eCommons/agora project

=============================================
Internet as Freedom Multiplier, Censor's Nightmare
Friday, 17 February 2006, 10:46 am
Press Release: US State Department
Statement on Internet as Multiplier for Freedom and Censor's Nightmare
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0602/S00271.htm

Ambassador David A. Gross, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications 
and Information Policy
Prepared Statement for Joint Hearing, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human
Rights, and International Operations and the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific, Committee on International Relations
Washington, DC
February 15, 2006

Since its commercial launch a little over a decade ago, the Internet has 
proven to be the greatest purveyor of news and information in history. From 
a small band of university researchers sharing documents to more than a 
billion people connecting in real-time around the globe, the Internet has 
proven to be a force multiplier for freedom and a censor's nightmare. 
Repressive regimes have failed to fully restrict or block access to the 
Internet. Nevertheless, there are severe challenges to this openness. These 
challenges are our focus. It's a top priority for the State Department and 
for the U.S. Government to do all we can to ensure maximum access to 
information over the Internet and to ensure minimum success by censors 
attempting to silence legitimate debate in this global town hall.

The U.S. Government and the State Department have been on the forefront of 
the battle to ensure global access to information through the Internet. We 
do this bilaterally and multilaterally. My colleague, Jim Keith, will focus 
on our bilateral relationship with China. We have actively engaged in 
outreach to other countries to find common cause regarding this important 
matter. Multilaterially, we are engaged in many forums, most recently at the 
UN's World Summit on the Information Society to expand the rights of all 
people, no matter where they live, to have access to the free flow of 
information. As the Department has focused more energy on this issue, the 
Secretary has concluded that a task force would be a useful tool to make our 
strong advocacy even sharper and stronger. The Global Internet Freedom Task 
Force, announced yesterday, will draw upon State's expertise across many 
Bureaus, including international communications policy, human rights, 
democracy, business advocacy, corporate responsibility and, as appropriate, 
relevant countries and regions.
ADVERTISEMENT

The task force will consider the foreign policy aspects of Internet freedom, 
including the use of technology to restrict access to political content and 
the impact of such censorship on U.S. companies, the use of technology to 
track and repress dissidents, and efforts to modify Internet governance 
structures in order to restrict the free flow of information. The task force 
will also look to ensure that our concerns are being raised at all levels 
with governments and international organizations.

We will also work with the private sector and NGOs to help address their 
concerns in meeting this challenge. The task force will, over the coming 
weeks and months, make recommendations to the Secretary on policy and 
diplomatic initiatives to maximize access to the Internet and to help 
minimize government efforts to block information. We will feed into a robust 
interagency process led by the NSC and NEC, including our partners at 
Commerce, Justice, USTR and other agencies.

Our goal in this area may be summarized by our desire to have more people 
have more access to more information everywhere.

This hearing is obviously an important part of this process. I am pleased 
with the recent, positive statements being made by Internet companies 
especially their willingness to work hard on the creation of global best 
practices. Of course, they too must do much more. Similarly, both in our 
conversations and in their public statements NGOs have been very helpful.

Six decades ago, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated that, 
"Everyone has the right to information, to freedom of opinion and 
expression. And this includes the right to freedom to hold opinions without 
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through 
any media regardless of frontiers." These rights were reaffirmed most 
recently at the UN's World Summit on the Information Society just this past 
November. We will work with all stakeholders, including of course the 
Congress to determine the best diplomatic and technological strategies to 
affirm these rights and practice.

Thank you.

Released on February 16, 2006

ENDS


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


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Fri Feb 17 04:27:06 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:27:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - Transcriptions from yesterday + my
	intervention
Message-ID: <43F596EA.1020308@bertola.eu.org>

All,

the transcriptions from yesterday are online:

http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-1-0216.txt
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-1-021606pm.txt

Also remember the live streaming at http://streaming.polito.it/IGF-live

And so I can now copy my intervention, for those who might be interested 
in reading it:

 >>VITTORIO BERTOLA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I would like to start by 
the concept that was agreed in Tunis Agenda about a forum based on 
authoritativeness and not on authority.
  I think this implies that participation and inclusiveness are vital 
elements to get support and for a forum to be effective.  And this leads 
me to my first very specific point which regards rules for accreditation 
and participation in the meetings.
  I think it is very important that there are no barriers, there are no 
obstacles for anyone who wants to participate in these meetings.  It 
should be very simple online-based registration system.  In general, you 
should make it possible for any stakeholder who wants to participate to 
join the meetings.  And this, speaking for what regards civil society, 
does not just include accredited or established NGOs but also includes 
informal groups, online campaigns, and even the individual users 
participating as individuals.  And then the most important point I 
wanted to make I think we all want this forum to have an impact.  I 
think we want this forum to be able to solve issues; otherwise, it will 
be useless.
  And so I would like to reiterate the idea that the IGF should be seen 
as a process and not as an event.  And the reason is clear.  I think 
that -- I mean, can you solve issues by meeting once a year for three 
days, maybe discussing 10 or 15 different issues, maybe in a room filled 
up by 500 people?  I think it's clear that you can't.
  And so if you want to change the Internet, I think you need to do it 
the Internet way.  You need to encompass the flow of spontaneous 
initiatives that are born every day on the Internet to solve the issues 
about which all the users of the Internet care.
  And so, my proposal, you need working groups.  You need to have open, 
online collaborative initiatives that are started by the people who 
care.  So all stakeholders that care about the specific issue can gather 
and form an online discussion forum and start to discuss and build 
consensus and actually work out best practices and recommendations.
  And then at the same time, I think you need some coordination among 
all these different working groups.  And this is why I think you also 
need a steering group.  Not a bureau, but a steering group that can 
advance the work and oversee the advancement of this work, can adopt the 
documents and the recommendations that are prepared and agreed by the 
different working groups, and also can take care, of course, of the 
program of the meeting.
  And I think this should be a sort of moral leader of this entire 
process, a group of people coming from all the different stakeholders 
that act as peers in their individual capacities, that are broadly 
respected and are especially open minded.  And possibly, these people 
should be self-selected by the different constituencies and stakeholder 
groups.
  But perhaps just to advance the work at an interim stage, I would 
suggest that they are appointed by the secretary general.
  I think that we need all of these elements to meet the challenge at 
this point in front of us.
  And to conclude, personally, I would really like to spend a word of 
support for the excellent work that the former WGIG Secretariat and 
chairmanship has been doing and are still doing.
  I think that many people here hope that they would be allowed to 
continue in the IGF.
  Thank you.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Fri Feb 17 04:39:46 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:39:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] terror incognito
Message-ID: <43F599E2.1030006@wz-berlin.de>

The most hilarious part of the afternoon session was the following:

 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:  (...)
The Internet Governance Forum enters new and unknown territory.
  Cyberspace is still a terra incognita.
  A lot of new things remain to be discovered.
  The list of issues which needs clarification is growing.
  It's a "terror incognito."
  [ Laughter ]
  >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:   I said -- I'm sorry.
  It's my English pronunciation.
  It's a terra inCOGNITa.
  [Applause]
  >> Speak English!
  >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:   It's not English?
  I am -- I'm sorry for that.
  But as a German researcher, sometimes you use Latin terminology.
  Anyhow.

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


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Fri Feb 17 04:36:55 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:36:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
 elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <200602161205.k1GC5BWv080474@trout.cpsr.org>
References: <200602161205.k1GC5BWv080474@trout.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <43F59937.8020705@bertola.eu.org>

Parminder ha scritto:
> The first issue is how strongly we all believe that public policy issues
> related to internet, including critical resources issues, should be
> discussed by IGF. My impression all along was that IG caucus, CS generally,
> WGIG and most developing countries wanted IGF precisely to discuss the
> complete range of Internet related public issues. 
> 
> However, I am hearing convoluted views on this list now, that makes me
> wonder if I had got it right. Please correct me if I am wrong - was IGF not
> always supposed to be an open-ended Internet related public policies
> discussion space. 

You are right, but it has always been clear that it should not replace 
existing institutions. Where the line stands between being 
effective/inclusive and not stepping on other people's toes is still to 
be defined, of course; and while CS supports the idea of a broad agenda 
and of not taking the "no replacement" rule in a too pervasive sense, I 
think that there is no support for getting rid of ICANN, WIPO etc... 
altogether and replacing them with the IGF.

Let me explain how I see the matter, in an algorithmic way:

- IF no organization exists to deal with an issue, THEN the IGF can 
discuss how to address the issue, and the issue itself;

- ELSE IF more than one organization exists, THEN the IGF can act as 
coordination / meeting point, encouraging them to talk to each other and 
produce compatible results, and perhaps hosting a WG to that purpose;

- ELSE (if one and only one organization exists) THEN the IGF should 
verify whether it abides by the WSIS principles, but the issue itself 
will be discussed at that organization.

In other words, to bluntly address your point, it is correct for the IGF 
to discuss whether ICANN is an open, accountable and transparent 
organization (in this, we differ from developed countries' opinion, that 
the assessment of ICANN is the subject of a separate, gov-only process) 
but not to discuss, say, gTLD policy in itself (if not, perhaps, on very 
generic aspects that pertain to other organizations as well - 
interaction with IPR (WIPO) themes, for example).

> And this thing about 'incorporating WSIS principles in IG mechanism' looks a
> very weak and unspecific language. Why don't we clearly spell out what are
> these principles.

They're written in the Geneva and Tunis commitments: transparency, 
accountability, democracy, with the full involvement etc, ie 
multistakeholderism. Now of course we need to elaborate on how to 
decline them into practice, but that's a job for the IGF.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Fri Feb 17 05:18:26 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:18:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] small correction & preparing EU Troika Meeting
In-Reply-To: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>

Troika meeting is at room 27, not room 26.

We havn't coordinated anything. I think our messages to the EU should 
include that
1. we want them to take the forum more seriously
2. they should give up the idea that they can discuss their public 
policy principles solely among governments meeting behind closed doors
3. human rights and freedom of expression are important cross cutting 
issues that are not sufficiently taken care of elsewhere

Anything else we should bring up?
jeanette

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi, the EU Troika suggests a meeting with civil society tomorrow at 1, 
> room 26. I hope people can make it. I don't think it is restricted to 
> European civil soc members. (Even Milton, who suspects not to be part of 
> the incrowd can attend.)
> Pls let me know as soon as possible in case there is a time conflict so 
> that we can reschedule it.
> 
> 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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Feb 17 05:22:28 2006
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:22:28 +1100
Subject: [governance] small correction & preparing EU Troika Meeting
In-Reply-To: <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <200602171022.k1HAMS1k001502@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk>

Surprised not to see network neutrality raised - nice to see spam and
multilingual up there but in northern countries network neutrality is a huge
issue and threat to the internet.

Ian Peter
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Friday, 17 February 2006 9:18 PM
> To: Rikke Frank Joergensen
> Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
> Subject: Re: [governance] small correction & preparing EU 
> Troika Meeting
> 
> Troika meeting is at room 27, not room 26.
> 
> We havn't coordinated anything. I think our messages to the 
> EU should include that 1. we want them to take the forum more 
> seriously 2. they should give up the idea that they can 
> discuss their public policy principles solely among 
> governments meeting behind closed doors 3. human rights and 
> freedom of expression are important cross cutting issues that 
> are not sufficiently taken care of elsewhere
> 
> Anything else we should bring up?
> jeanette
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > Hi, the EU Troika suggests a meeting with civil society 
> tomorrow at 1, 
> > room 26. I hope people can make it. I don't think it is 
> restricted to 
> > European civil soc members. (Even Milton, who suspects not 
> to be part 
> > of the incrowd can attend.) Pls let me know as soon as possible in 
> > case there is a time conflict so that we can reschedule it.
> > 
> > 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
> 
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.5/256 - Release 
> Date: 10/02/2006
>  
> 

-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.5/256 - Release Date: 10/02/2006
 

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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Fri Feb 17 05:23:37 2006
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:23:37 +0000
Subject: [governance] small correction & preparing EU Troika Meeting
In-Reply-To: <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de>
 <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060217102037.0207e3f8@gn.apc.org>

hi jeanette

>We havn't coordinated anything. I think our messages to the EU should
>include that
>1. we want them to take the forum more seriously
>2. they should give up the idea that they can discuss their public
>policy principles solely among governments meeting behind closed doors
>3. human rights and freedom of expression are important cross cutting
>issues that are not sufficiently taken care of elsewhere

4. why we are concerned that the agenda will be narrowed and certain 
issues will fall off the table - they want to understand the 
motivation behind bill and milton's interventions

5. our rationale behind IGF as process, not just annual meeting, how 
it will work, resourcing, working groups etc

6. the access agenda - i think civil society has to be firmly and 
consitently supportive of pushing development orientation of the IGF 
- and not, as some have said, simply in terms of capacity building - 
i include APC's text on this issue below

karen

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


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Fri Feb 17 05:31:25 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:31:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] small correction & preparing EU Troika Meeting
In-Reply-To: <200602171022.k1HAMS1k001502@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk>
References: <200602171022.k1HAMS1k001502@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk>
Message-ID: <43F5A5FD.8070906@bertola.eu.org>

Ian Peter ha scritto:
> Surprised not to see network neutrality raised - nice to see spam and
> multilingual up there but in northern countries network neutrality is a huge
> issue and threat to the internet.

support: my top issues would be network neutrality and trusted computing...
but I think that, overall, we have to stress the message that the idea 
of focusing the meeting on 2-3 issues they care (ie spam + 
cybersecurity) and forgetting about everything else - which is something 
that the EU explicitly said this morning - is not acceptable for us, so 
since there's no time to fully discuss all the issues in the 3-day 
meeting, please support the adoption of the bottom-up working groups method.
also could we say that if they adopt the method of 3 separate bureaus 
(gov bureau + PSB + CSB) as suggested by brazil, then it's reasonable 
that they wouldn't find anyone willing to be a member of the PSB & CSB?
(or, the sad thing, I imagine, is that they would actually find some)
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Feb 17 05:51:02 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:21:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <43F59937.8020705@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <200602171047.k1HAlk9G003783@trout.cpsr.org>

Thanks Vittorio for clarifying the issue a lot.

 

A couple of points.

 

The main postulate in your clarification is that IGF should take up only
those issues 'that are not in the domain of other existing organizations'.
Though as you clarify, the process issues of these other organization can be
discussed by the IGF. On the face of it appears a neat separation, but the
issues are much more complicated. 

 

First of all, I must clarify that IGF is clearly mandated as a public policy
discussion space (along with research, presenting policy options etc) and no
way as a decision making body in any manner whatsoever. So, there is no
question of replacing ICANN, WIPO etc. 

 

>> I 

think that there is no support for getting rid of ICANN, WIPO etc... 

altogether and replacing them with the IGF.>>

 

 

As I see from the discussions on this CS list in the last few days the scope
of IGF is being narrowed from two directions. 

 

One, a lot of issues - like access, affordability - are being argued as not
being IGF issues (despite they being in para 72) 

Two, it is being argued that that IGF should take up only such issues that
are not at present dealt with other organizations. (despite the operational
para 72 interpreting IGF function much more widely).  

 

These two arguments tend to effectively cut down the domain of IGF in a
drastic manner. What is surprising is that such an attempt to curtail IGF's
mandate in such a manner, goes beyond what is already committed by
governments in Tunis agenda. It is even more surprising because, as I read
from Izumi's notes of the IGF consultation meeting, even developed countries
like the EU group, have re-iterated 'full compliance with Para 72 of Tunis
agenda'. But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
commitment to para 72.

 

(As I write this I also read your today's intervention which speaks
exclusively of process and participation issues, but not on substantive
mandate of IGF, and doesn't call for a commitment to 'full compliance with
para 72' - and these are parts of Tunis agenda that were gained after a lot
of struggle, and we have been considering them among few victories from
WSIS.)

 

As for IGF standing by and just seeing if WSIS principles are incorporated
in the work of existing IG bodies, I repeat that it by itself is a weak and
in-effectual formulation.   

 

WSIS principles are really elaborate, multifarious and broad -and not
restricted to your reading of them as  'transparency, 

accountability, democracy, with the full involvement etc, ie
multistakeholderism'.

 

 

For example, if one finds that some of ICANN decisions have implication on
wsis principle of 'promoting freer access to information for all' (even the
issue of their operational costs that they collect from registries and its
implication on cost of obtaining domain names may be considered one such
issue) and that they are not 'incorporating WSIS principles in IG
mechanism', the what is one expected to do about it. Just complain to ICANN,
and expect them to change. Why wouldn't an open ended discussion on this
issue, and even presentation of options, be a legitimate domain of IGF. 

 

And we must also note that both 'access and affordability' issues, and
'critical internet resources' issue are mentioned in WSIS docs, as
legitimate domain of IGF. If we didn't want these in para 72, we shd have
objected at WSIS and only asked for IGF to ensure that WSIS principles are
incorporated in existing IG mechanism.

 

Why is CS so keen to limit IGF's domian - rather than broaden it. Typically,
governments have been the ones wary of too much open discussions etc. why is
CS getting defensive in this case. Whom or what are we defending. 

 

Many of us came to WSIS IG discussion because we found existing IG systems
inadequate, and often their processes/ decisions unacceptable. So when we
now see the CS insisting so much on upholding present IG systems, and trying
to see that the new body IGF is able to do the least to challenge this
system, it is disappointing. And when they are out-doing even the developed
country governments in this attempt it becomes indeed perplexing. 

 

The kind of argument given in your email, and those of many others here,
makes me believe that you seek essentially only two functions from the IGF

 

1.    To stand by and ensure that present IG structures are not increasingly
taken over by governments. And MS principle is 'retained' and strengthened
in these structures. 

2.    To work toward building IG related capacity in developing countries.
(On this point see Anriette's mail on how patronizing this can sound, even
if the need for some such thing is certainly there). 

 

While both these functions are important, it is quite a waste to limit IGF
to these, and to do so is to go back a lot on what many consider as the
chief gain from WSIS. I can assure you that, this view is shared by most
people from developing countries. 

 

 

Regards,

Parminder    

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:07 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'Governance Caucus'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
elements of IGF functions ommitted

 

Parminder ha scritto:

> The first issue is how strongly we all believe that public policy issues

> related to internet, including critical resources issues, should be

> discussed by IGF. My impression all along was that IG caucus, CS
generally,

> WGIG and most developing countries wanted IGF precisely to discuss the

> complete range of Internet related public issues. 

> 

> However, I am hearing convoluted views on this list now, that makes me

> wonder if I had got it right. Please correct me if I am wrong - was IGF
not

> always supposed to be an open-ended Internet related public policies

> discussion space. 

 

You are right, but it has always been clear that it should not replace 

existing institutions. Where the line stands between being 

effective/inclusive and not stepping on other people's toes is still to 

be defined, of course; and while CS supports the idea of a broad agenda 

and of not taking the "no replacement" rule in a too pervasive sense, I 

think that there is no support for getting rid of ICANN, WIPO etc... 

altogether and replacing them with the IGF.

 

Let me explain how I see the matter, in an algorithmic way:

 

- IF no organization exists to deal with an issue, THEN the IGF can 

discuss how to address the issue, and the issue itself;

 

- ELSE IF more than one organization exists, THEN the IGF can act as 

coordination / meeting point, encouraging them to talk to each other and 

produce compatible results, and perhaps hosting a WG to that purpose;

 

- ELSE (if one and only one organization exists) THEN the IGF should 

verify whether it abides by the WSIS principles, but the issue itself 

will be discussed at that organization.

 

In other words, to bluntly address your point, it is correct for the IGF 

to discuss whether ICANN is an open, accountable and transparent 

organization (in this, we differ from developed countries' opinion, that 

the assessment of ICANN is the subject of a separate, gov-only process) 

but not to discuss, say, gTLD policy in itself (if not, perhaps, on very 

generic aspects that pertain to other organizations as well - 

interaction with IPR (WIPO) themes, for example).

 

> And this thing about 'incorporating WSIS principles in IG mechanism' looks
a

> very weak and unspecific language. Why don't we clearly spell out what are

> these principles.

 

They're written in the Geneva and Tunis commitments: transparency, 

accountability, democracy, with the full involvement etc, ie 

multistakeholderism. Now of course we need to elaborate on how to 

decline them into practice, but that's a job for the IGF.

-- 

vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----

http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060217/58c3c6d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Feb 17 05:56:34 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:56:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] terror incognito
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735A9F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Here is the full text. 

 

Statement by Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus, at the IGF Consultations

 

Geneva, February, 16, 2006

 

Thank you Mr. Chairman

 

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) enters new and unknown territory. The cyberspace is still a "terra incognita". A lot of new things remain to be discovered and more will come.

 

The list of issues which needs clarification is growing. Ten years ago the United Nations had no idea that Domain Names, Spam or WiMax in Africa are issues for public policy discussion. And what we know today about the agenda of the years 2010 or 2015? Probably only little.

 

Innovations with regard to the use of the Internet will produce new problems. Take, as only one example, the challenges of "Video over IP", which will be much bigger than "Voice over IP" and will go even beyond IPTV, Internet Television. Millions of private and public Video Clips and Photos will be in the Internet, a great challenge for search engines like Google or the new European project Quaerro, which have started to develop search capabilities for voice and video recognition. 

 

One of the consequences of such a development could be that biometrical data of individuals could become a public resource for search on the Internet. What happens now on airports could take place anywhere in your home. I take the biometrical data from a photo of my friend, start a search and will find all the photos and videos of him available on the Internet. Probably this could become a problem

 

Such issues needs broader public discussion and should not be discussed in small technical circles or closed governmental negotiations group. The Forum could become the ideal place where the consequences of such new developments are discussed. The Forum could write Internet history by functioning as a laboratory and as an early warning system. It would miss an opportunity and will fail, if it would restart the battles of yesterday. 

 

This is certainly a challenge for all stakeholders, governments, private sector and civil society. But it is particular a challenge for the global research community.

 

Academicians and technicians have been involved in the development of the Internet from the very early days. And they will have to play an even more important role in the future. 

 

May I use this opportunity here to inform you that a group of academic researches has started a process - which we have called "enhanced communication" - to improve the networking and collaboration among existing academic research institutions on the globe. The vision is to develop a global decentralized network of researches which would improve the flow of Internet related research results both among the researchers themselves and among academic researchers and the main stakeholders. Such a network could produce "food for thought" for governments, private sector and civil society. It could become something like a flexible and decentralized think tank behind the Forum. If the Forum is designed as a bottom up policy development project, the chance to find the right answers to the new challenges will be higher. More knowledge will probably help to create more wisdom. 

 

A groundwork was done just last week in a very inspiring conference which was organized by the Diplo Foundation in Malta. The results of this meeting has been distributed here during the Forum. And let me inform you also that the International Association of Communication (ICA) and the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), two global organisations representing more than 10 000 academic researchers from around the globe, will organize another small joint symposium this year in Dresden where we want to develop a more concrete framework for such a new process of "enhanced communication". Hopefully we will produce already some results for the planned Forum in Athens, in October 2006. 

 

 

 
 
 
 

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
Gesendet: Fr 17.02.2006 10:39
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] terror incognito



The most hilarious part of the afternoon session was the following:

 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:  (...)
The Internet Governance Forum enters new and unknown territory.
  Cyberspace is still a terra incognita.
  A lot of new things remain to be discovered.
  The list of issues which needs clarification is growing.
  It's a "terror incognito."
  [ Laughter ]
  >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:   I said -- I'm sorry.
  It's my English pronunciation.
  It's a terra inCOGNITa.
  [Applause]
  >> Speak English!
  >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:   It's not English?
  I am -- I'm sorry for that.
  But as a German researcher, sometimes you use Latin terminology.
  Anyhow.

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


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Fri Feb 17 06:08:19 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:08:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
 elements of IGF functions ommitted
Message-ID: <43F5AEA3.2090102@bertola.eu.org>

Parminder ha scritto:
> One, a lot of issues – like access, affordability – are being argued as 
> not being IGF issues (despite they being in para 72)

I'm not arguing against this. I couldn't read all the flood of emails 
that appeared on this list in the last few days, but as far as I 
understand, you misunderstood Bill stressing one specific part of the 
mandate as an attempt to deny the others.

> (As I write this I also read your today’s intervention which speaks 
> exclusively of process and participation issues, but not on substantive 
> mandate of IGF, and doesn’t call for a commitment to ‘full compliance 
> with para 72’ – and these are parts of Tunis agenda that were gained 
> after a lot of struggle, and we have been considering them among few 
> victories from WSIS.)

You might have noticed that the agenda item currently under discussion 
is "Nature, character and structure of the IGF"... And I don't think 
that you can ask all civil society people that take the floor (all 
speaking personally or for their own org, by the way, and not on behalf 
of CS or of the caucus) to stress your pet issue every time they speak.

By the way, governments in the room openly said that they were annoyed 
by so many civil society people taking the floor and repeating the same 
points again and again.

> For example, if one finds that some of ICANN decisions have implication 
> on wsis principle of ‘promoting freer access to information for all’ 
> (even the issue of their operational costs that they collect from 
> registries and its implication on cost of obtaining domain names may be 
> considered one such issue) and that they are not ‘incorporating WSIS 
> principles in IG mechanism', the what is one expected to do about it. 
> Just complain to ICANN, and expect them to change. Why wouldn’t an open 
> ended discussion on this issue, and even presentation of options, be a 
> legitimate domain of IGF.

I think it would - even if I think it would be unlikely to happen, it 
would be promptly stopped by many stakeholders speaking against it, and 
please realize the forum has no authority, you can't force a discussion 
to happen at the forum unless all forum participants accept it... unless 
you want to point a gun to Ambassador Gross and force him into the room :-D

> Why is CS so keen to limit IGF’s domian

Actually, all our interventions go in the direction of making it broader 
than most governments wish (actually, the so-called "Anglosaxon 
Conspiracy" pushes for the forum not to discuss anything meaningful, and 
the EU and others push it to discuss spam and cybercrime only).

> The kind of argument given in your email, and those of many others here, 
> makes me believe that you seek essentially only two functions from the IGF

No offense meant, but would you please listen to other people, rather 
than presume what they want? You're attributing to most people in the 
caucus intentions that they never had and statements they never made.

Thanks,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Feb 17 06:09:22 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:09:22 -0300
Subject: [governance] small correction & preparing EU Troika Meeting
In-Reply-To: <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de> <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <43F5AEE2.4070301@rits.org.br>

I have the impression they might want to discuss more concrete issues, 
like thematica specialization of the upcoming meetings, choice of main 
themes for the first one (Athens), and so on. Which of course does not 
preclude us from proposing our agenda items to be included in the chat.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>Troika meeting is at room 27, not room 26.
>
>We havn't coordinated anything. I think our messages to the EU should 
>include that
>1. we want them to take the forum more seriously
>2. they should give up the idea that they can discuss their public 
>policy principles solely among governments meeting behind closed doors
>3. human rights and freedom of expression are important cross cutting 
>issues that are not sufficiently taken care of elsewhere
>
>Anything else we should bring up?
>jeanette
>
>Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi, the EU Troika suggests a meeting with civil society tomorrow at 1, 
>>room 26. I hope people can make it. I don't think it is restricted to 
>>European civil soc members. (Even Milton, who suspects not to be part of 
>>the incrowd can attend.)
>>Pls let me know as soon as possible in case there is a time conflict so 
>>that we can reschedule it.
>>
>>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
>
>
>  
>

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Feb 17 06:26:15 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:56:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <43F5AEA3.2090102@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <200602171122.k1HBMtWp009273@trout.cpsr.org>

Vittorio,

I only mean to push some points I want pushed sitting over here, through
people I know who are at the meeting. And in this especially, the insistence
on keeping the 'access' and 'critical internet resources' issues within IGF
ambit as they presently are in tunis agenda. I myself have only such insight
into discussions and views as I read on this list, and therefore find it
fine to discuss these impressions openly.... There are mails that have
spoken against these issues to be kept within IGF functions.... or so it
appeared to me. 

Parminder 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:38 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'Governance Caucus'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
elements of IGF functions ommitted

Parminder ha scritto:
> One, a lot of issues - like access, affordability - are being argued as 
> not being IGF issues (despite they being in para 72)

I'm not arguing against this. I couldn't read all the flood of emails 
that appeared on this list in the last few days, but as far as I 
understand, you misunderstood Bill stressing one specific part of the 
mandate as an attempt to deny the others.

> (As I write this I also read your today's intervention which speaks 
> exclusively of process and participation issues, but not on substantive 
> mandate of IGF, and doesn't call for a commitment to 'full compliance 
> with para 72' - and these are parts of Tunis agenda that were gained 
> after a lot of struggle, and we have been considering them among few 
> victories from WSIS.)

You might have noticed that the agenda item currently under discussion 
is "Nature, character and structure of the IGF"... And I don't think 
that you can ask all civil society people that take the floor (all 
speaking personally or for their own org, by the way, and not on behalf 
of CS or of the caucus) to stress your pet issue every time they speak.

By the way, governments in the room openly said that they were annoyed 
by so many civil society people taking the floor and repeating the same 
points again and again.

> For example, if one finds that some of ICANN decisions have implication 
> on wsis principle of 'promoting freer access to information for all' 
> (even the issue of their operational costs that they collect from 
> registries and its implication on cost of obtaining domain names may be 
> considered one such issue) and that they are not 'incorporating WSIS 
> principles in IG mechanism', the what is one expected to do about it. 
> Just complain to ICANN, and expect them to change. Why wouldn't an open 
> ended discussion on this issue, and even presentation of options, be a 
> legitimate domain of IGF.

I think it would - even if I think it would be unlikely to happen, it 
would be promptly stopped by many stakeholders speaking against it, and 
please realize the forum has no authority, you can't force a discussion 
to happen at the forum unless all forum participants accept it... unless 
you want to point a gun to Ambassador Gross and force him into the room :-D

> Why is CS so keen to limit IGF's domian

Actually, all our interventions go in the direction of making it broader 
than most governments wish (actually, the so-called "Anglosaxon 
Conspiracy" pushes for the forum not to discuss anything meaningful, and 
the EU and others push it to discuss spam and cybercrime only).

> The kind of argument given in your email, and those of many others here, 
> makes me believe that you seek essentially only two functions from the IGF

No offense meant, but would you please listen to other people, rather 
than presume what they want? You're attributing to most people in the 
caucus intentions that they never had and statements they never made.

Thanks,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 06:35:53 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:35:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] Proposal for selecting the themes of the Athens meeting
Message-ID: <954259bd0602170335y4c57c6b9y18b77c45ce20965f@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please find below the intervention I made this morning on the second day of
the open Consultations on the Convening of the IGF, propsing an iterative
process to select a few themes to structure the Athens meeting. Sorry for
not circulating it earlier for comments, the idea came to me yesterday
evening in view of the discussions on the first day.

Comments on this idea are welcome, as I believe the various cacuses in civil
society would be interested to participate in such a



*First Consultations on the Convening of the Internet Governance Forum*

February 17, 2006





Personal contribution by :

*Bertrand de La Chapelle*

Email : lachapelle at openwsis.org

Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32





Mr Chairman,



You invited us yesterday to contribute in a thinking aloud mode and I will
follow your recommendation here, presenting a few concrete ideas in a
personal capacity to feed the debate, focusing on the first meeting of the
Forum in Athens.



1)     The IGF should be established in the most pragmatic and
self-organizing manner possible. As the participant from Singapore mentioned
yesterday : we want the IGF to start small and evolve. To prove the movement
by walking, and save time, the simplest approach could be to *organize **
Athens** as a 3-4 days open conference*, with a basic registration process,
like the one used for the present meeting, open even to interested
individuals.

2)     Athens should address a diversity of substantive issues in a limited
number of *thematic sessions* (4 to 6 max), in addition to the necessary
opening and final wrap-up plenaries.

3)     The purpose of these thematic sessions is to allow all actors to
reach *a better understanding of each issue* and the challenges it raises,
even if they do not agree at that stage on how it should be addressed, or
what the solutions are. The only criteria should be that actors agree the
issue exists and should be addressed.

4)     Each session could start with *a panel* of experts from the different
categories of stakeholders presenting the different dimensions of the issue,
followed by an *overview of the main actors* involved in addressing it. A *
discussion* would then follow to explore how the Forum can facilitate
deliberations about it and interaction among the various actors.

5)     For each thematic session, a *rapporteur* would present the main
elements of the discussion in the wrap-up plenary to help structure
activities in view of the next annual meeting of the IGF.

6)     How should these themes be selected ? Several suggestions have been
made yesterday and surely will be today. But we need an iterative and
structured process to identify them in an open and inclusive manner. In this
perspective, following these consultations, an *open call for suggestions of
themes* could be initiated by the Secretariat, with a deadline of end of
March.

7)     Stakeholders would contribute *one page submission, in a proposed six
point format* :

a.      A *concise formulation* for the proposed theme;

b.     A brief *description* of why it is important in their view;

c.     How it is in conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of *substance*,
particularly in reference to para. 34 to 54;

d.     How it fits *within the mandate* of the IGF as detailed in para 72;

e.      Who the *main actors* in the field are, who could be encouraged to
participate in the Forum and its thematic sessions

f.       Last but not least, why, in their view, this issue should be
addressed *in the first annual meeting* of the Forum rather than in
subsequent ones.

8)     Submissions would be posted online by the secretariat. A *second
phase for online comments* would be opened for all actors to express support
or criticize the proposals during the month of April.

9)     The second round of open consultations envisaged for *May *could
then, in view of a summary of comments by the Secretariat, select the few
themes that gather the greatest consensus.

10)      At this second meeting, and only then, a more formal
*multi-stakeholder
Program Committee* would be formed to help organize the introductory panels
for each thematic session, and guarantee the involvement of the key
stakeholders in this field.

11)      Finally, during the Athens meeting, stakeholders who submitted
issues not retained for the main thematic sessions would be given the
opportunity to make short 3-5 minutes interventions in a special *poster
session of 2 to 3 hours* in order to further feed the agenda-setting
process.



Mr. Chairman, I will limit my contribution at that stage to this issue and
take the opportunity to thank you for holding this meeting in such an open
format.



_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060217/86de4dee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From drake at hei.unige.ch  Fri Feb 17 06:37:36 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:37:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] small correction & preparing EU Troika Meeting
Message-ID: <1140176255.43f5b58003b90@heimail.unige.ch>


Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks

> 4. why we are concerned that the agenda will be narrowed and certain
> issues will fall off the table - they want to understand the
> motivation behind bill and milton's interventions

Happy to discuss at the meeting, but it's not obvious that there's an agreement
space between the UK's apparent desire to constrain the process to occasional
gab fests on relatively anodyne topics and to keep the principles discussion
private between them and the US, and our interest in promoting IG reform and
inclusion.  There are some continental governments more amenable to our
approach, but intra-EU politics are an abyss into which we might not want to
plunge.

BD


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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Fri Feb 17 06:38:58 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:38:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more
 progressiveelements of IGF functions ommitted
Message-ID: <1140176338.43f5b5d205b0d@heimail.unige.ch>

Hi McTim,

Two quick thoughts while I sit here listening to ISOC say that the forum should
focus only on easy noncontroversial issues and capacity building.

Discussion of possible public policy principles is not, in fact, ongoing in
other forums.  All that's been happening is that the US and EU are having
private bilaterals, and the US is telling everyone they can join and support
GAC, which neither the Europeans nor the developing countries appears to view
as an answer.  Brazil was quite explicit on this yesterday.  If it doesn't
happen in the IGF, where do you think everyone excluded from the US-EU dialogue
will take it?  My money's on the ITU.  Do you prefer that to an open
multistakeholder discussion in a nonbiding forum?

I'm not clear what your point is with respect to the technical discussion you
forwarded.  Yes, people who do not come from technical backgrounds and
participate in technical forums might not be inclined to read through or able
to fully grok the dialogues there.  So what?  Does that mean that governments
have no right to take an interest in public policy aspects, or that CS should
not try to have a dialogue with them in order to encourage good policies and
discourage bad ones?  Should we just tell them to sit down, be quiet, and eat
their Wheaties?  That line obviously hasn't gone done well to date, I can't see
how you'd imagine it will going forward.

Puzzled,

Bill





-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of McTim


A) It would be a waste of time, money and effort, as these discussions are
ongoing in other fora.  Duplication is what we want to avoid IMO.

B) I don't think the IGF can do IG better than the current bodies.

C) I am sure that IGF participants will not be interested in the nitty gritty
"technical" issues that IG resource folk talk about.  At least on this list
whenever anything remotely technical comes up, there are only a few who don't
bury thier heads in the sand.

For example, here is an excerpt form a mail I just read posted to a public
policy list concerning Internet resources:


<excerpt>

I think an approach to lat/long PI addressing such as your
draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-09.txt may be a solid foundation for choosing the PI
block to assign to each individual organization.  However, I think your
draft-hain-ipv6 -pi-addr-use-09.txt proposals, and previous discussion of
similar ideas on PPML, have over-engineered the use cases and the
implications for routing and exchange points.  In particular, I read your
drafts as requiring that all ISPs in a region would have to agree on the
level of aggregation for the region and that all ISPs in that region
interconnect at an exchange point, and also encouraging ISPs to filter
more-specifics heard from their peers based on how many routes each origin
AS announces and/or a certain prefix length.  I think that all these
requirements/suggestions are unnecessarily restrictive stipulations that
encourage unnecessary opposition to the proposal.

Here's what I see as a more realistic application of Geo PI:

 - Implement some sort of geography-based PI addressing scheme, either one
like draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-09.txt, a population-based scheme like Michael
Dillon has advocated, or something more like our current system, where RIRs
allocate PI blocks to individual companies, but choose the particular
netblock to allocate based on one of the schemes above.  (I'm not sure which
of those approaches is superior, but we can debate the merits of each
separately.)
 - Initially, multihomed organizations allocated PI space would probably
route them the exact same way they do IPv4 PI space today, announcing it in
BGP to their transit providers, who would advertise it to everyone on the
planet with a full BGP feed (the DFZ).
 - At some future point, some global tier 1 NSPs* may decide that the
routing table growth is causing problems for their routers.  At that point,
they can begin aggregating PI space within their own network, such that
within a region (which could be a BGP confederation sub-AS, for example) all
more-specifics for that region are carried, but only the PI aggregate is
carried outside the region.  In order for an tier 1 NSP to do this
effectively, they would have to ensure that all of their peers have at least
two peering points within the region (private peering or exchanged-based, it
doesn't matter), so that their peers can reach them and their customers' PI
more-specifics for that region.
 - For transit customers outside the aggregated region, the tier 1 NSP would
be able to just advertise the PI aggregate.  For peers who only peer outside
the region, the NSP could do one of several things: they could simply
advertise the peer their PI aggregate, which opens the possibility of
providing transit connectivity to the peer; they could carry all
more-specifics from the aggregated region to the peering router(s), which
would probably require a multihop BGP session or a tunnel; or they could
simply not advertise routes from the aggregated region to their peer outside
that region, requiring the peer to set up a peering point within the
aggregated region or buy transit connectivity for traffic to that region.
 - When two or more NSPs set up such aggregation, a customer multi-homed to
both NSPs would be able to announce their PI deaggregate to their transit
providers just as they do now.  Anyone trying to reach the customer from
within the region (or from an NSP that doesn't aggregate) would be able to
choose between the two resulting BGP paths.  Anyone trying to reach the
customer from outside the region would see the customer's IP space as part
of a regional aggregate, and would route their traffic towards the region.
Once the traffic arrived at the region, it would reach a router which would
be able to choose between the two deaggregated paths, based on the BGP
metrics (localpref, AS path, MEDs, etc.) set by the origin AS.
 - If the two NSPs the customer multi-homes to decide to aggregate
differently, it might affect the traffic balance inbound to the multi-homed
customer, but the customer will still have the leeway to adjust their
announcements to compensate.  For example, if NSP A aggregates a smaller
region to a /32, and NSP B aggregates a larger region to a /28, then traffic
from outside the larger region would prefer NSP A, while traffic from the
in-between region would prefer NSP B, as the route would still be a
deaggregate over NSP B in that region.  Once traffic reached the smaller
region, the origin AS's BGP metrics would take over.

My point here is not that NSPs have to do things this way, but rather that a
geography-based PI allocation scheme allows them to continue operating with
the current model as long as they want to, and also gives them the
flexibility to begin gradually aggregating PI space within their network as
they see fit (for example by starting with large regions like continents, an
later aggregating on a more regional basis as needed).  We can implement
such a geography-based PI allocation scheme *without* requiring everyone (or
anyone) in a region to set up new interconnections, and without requiring
anyone to coordinate the precise size of aggregated regions (and thereby the
length of aggregate prefixes).  IMO that makes it *much* more likely that
such a system could reach consensus and actually get implemented.

</excerpt>


Now, I think this discussion is fascinating, and crucial to the stability of
future internetworking.  How many people in Tunisia would;

A) be interested enough to read the entire post let alone dozens of similar ones
daily on dozens of lists? (or be motivated enough to do the research to learn?)


B) know what the post was saying and could fit that into the schema of global
coordination of such resources?

With respect to B, I think the Canadians Prepcom3 proposal about capacity
building was spot on.  The existing fora work well.  Unfortunately, from a
bottom up perspective it is a very narrow bottom, so IGF capacity building is
key IMO in expanding that bottom.

It is clear that the current bodies are keen to work with the IGF.  However, if
the IGF recommends smt contrary to the best interests of the communities that
make up the current bodies, count on those recommendations to be largely
ignored.



--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim


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


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Fri Feb 17 06:50:16 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:50:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] small correction & preparing EU Troika Meeting
In-Reply-To: <1140176255.43f5b58003b90@heimail.unige.ch>
References: <1140176255.43f5b58003b90@heimail.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <43F5B878.5020903@wz-berlin.de>



William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks
> 
> 
>>4. why we are concerned that the agenda will be narrowed and certain
>>issues will fall off the table - they want to understand the
>>motivation behind bill and milton's interventions
> 
> 
> Happy to discuss at the meeting, but it's not obvious that there's an agreement
> space between the UK's apparent desire to constrain the process to occasional
> gab fests on relatively anodyne topics and to keep the principles discussion
> private between them and the US, and our interest in promoting IG reform and
> inclusion.  There are some continental governments more amenable to our
> approach, but intra-EU politics are an abyss into which we might not want to
> plunge.

I disagree, we need to broaden the interaction with the EU, and I am 
happy that the troika approached us to set up a meeting. It is important 
to let them know that we disagree with their official position and why 
we do so. This even more important against the background of the EU's 
internal disagreements.
jeanette
> 
> BD
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Feb 17 06:39:11 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:39:11 -0300
Subject: [governance] furtheron the troika meeting...
In-Reply-To: <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>
References: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de> <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <43F5B5DF.2010703@rits.org.br>

I guess "enhanced colaboration process" will be brought to the 
discussion as well, or should be.

--c.a.



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


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Fri Feb 17 06:56:58 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:56:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] small correction & preparing EU Troika Meeting
Message-ID: <1140177417.43f5ba0a00210@heimail.unige.ch>

Hi J,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de]

> I disagree, we need to broaden the interaction with the EU, and I am
> happy that the troika approached us to set up a meeting. It is important
> to let them know that we disagree with their official position and why
> we do so. This even more important against the background of the EU's
> internal disagreements.

We're developing a hearty habit on this list of disagreeing where there's no
disagreement.

I didn't say we shouldn't broaden our contacts with the EC.  I expressed caution
about getting drawn into the cauldron of differences among EU states.  Aligning
with some in their battles with others adds a layer of complexity to our
interactions with all, so it's a matter of being reasonably deft.

BD

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


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 06:58:19 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:58:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] furtheron the troika meeting...
In-Reply-To: <43F5B5DF.2010703@rits.org.br>
References: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de> <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>
	<43F5B5DF.2010703@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <954259bd0602170358i1313e219va3ea8a06d02c24a@mail.gmail.com>

I support this issue to be brought up, for two reasons :
- to stress that keeping this discussion only among governments is not in
the multi-stakeholder spirit of the Tunis Agenda
- to push them a little in recognizing that contrary to the IGF, the actual
enhanced cooperation process is not really launched at that stage.

Bertrand


On 2/17/06, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
>
> I guess "enhanced colaboration process" will be brought to the
> discussion as well, or should be.
>
> --c.a.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060217/28220f92/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Feb 17 10:14:06 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:14:06 -0300
Subject: [governance] furtheron the troika meeting...
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0602170358i1313e219va3ea8a06d02c24a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43F4477C.4030906@wz-berlin.de> <43F5A2F2.8060407@wz-berlin.de>	
	<43F5B5DF.2010703@rits.org.br>
	<954259bd0602170358i1313e219va3ea8a06d02c24a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43F5E83E.8070209@rits.org.br>

Agreed, Bertrand.

--c.a.

Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

>I support this issue to be brought up, for two reasons :
>- to stress that keeping this discussion only among governments is not in
>the multi-stakeholder spirit of the Tunis Agenda
>- to push them a little in recognizing that contrary to the IGF, the actual
>enhanced cooperation process is not really launched at that stage.
>
>Bertrand
>
>
>On 2/17/06, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
>  
>
>>I guess "enhanced colaboration process" will be brought to the
>>discussion as well, or should be.
>>
>>--c.a.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>governance mailing list
>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


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


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Feb 17 10:38:19 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:38:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more	progressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitte
Message-ID: <s3f5a7b3.062@gwia201.syr.edu>


Hello, Parminder.  

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 2/17/2006 5:51 AM >>>
>First of all, I must clarify that IGF is clearly mandated as a public policy
>discussion space (along with research, presenting policy options etc) and no

[snip] 

>Two, it is being argued that that IGF should take up only such issues that
>are not at present dealt with other organizations. (despite the operational
>para 72 interpreting IGF function much more widely).  

[snip]
>But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
>commitment to para 72.

I don't know what you are talking about. I and Bill Drake have been leading the charge against any narrowing of the IGF's activities. Our comments were considered so provokative that EU people went around sounding out other CS people as to whether they agreed with us. (As far as I know, everyone here does.) The Australian delegate went out of his way today to counter our comments.  

I understand that it is hard to keep up with a process you are not attending and that all the emails flying about are hard to keep up with, but the fact is that you're just wrong in your assertions and you need to face that fact and back down. 

We have enough real battles going on here. We don't need to fight phantom ones. 
 



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


From seiiti at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 11:06:31 2006
From: seiiti at gmail.com (Seiiti Arata)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:06:31 -0300
Subject: [governance] Brazilian news
Message-ID: <874fe2180602170806p7d87a60au50e1dc425146db9@mail.gmail.com>

At the end of today's works, Brazilian delegation officially presented
an offer to the plenary to host 2007 IGF meeting in Rio.

[]s
Seiiti

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


From avri at acm.org  Fri Feb 17 12:25:07 2006
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:25:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] as we are now uncoordinated ...
Message-ID: <24F078DF-F2C1-4385-B494-119A43EAE96C@acm.org>

hi,

as of today, with the IGF consultations being over, the second of the  
IGC coordinators has ceased coordinating us.

i want to thank Adam and Jeanette for all they have done as  
coordinators and thank them for putting up with us.  they did a lot  
to put this caucus on the map, and to give CS a voice that is being  
heard.

i looking forward to continuing to work with them as fellow caucus  
participants.  although picking on them just wont be as much fun as  
it used to be.

a.



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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 15:03:55 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:03:55 +0300
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more
	progressiveelements of IGF functions ommitted
In-Reply-To: <1140176338.43f5b5d205b0d@heimail.unige.ch>
References: <1140176338.43f5b5d205b0d@heimail.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0602171203l2e0c9493kbd03e89fdba0b9a7@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Bill,

On 2/17/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Discussion of possible public policy principles is not, in fact, ongoing
> in
> other forums.


In fact it is. Every day on dozens of lists (and occasional f2f).  My point
in fwding the excerpt was precisely on point. The things discussed in open,
archived, bottom-up ARE public policy issues. The fora exist and are making
decisions that many in CS say they want to help make.


> All that's been happening is that the US and EU are having
> private bilaterals, and the US is telling everyone they can join and
> support
> GAC,


Ah, but gov't can participate in the bottom up process as well as GAC, just
like you and me.


 which neither the Europeans nor the developing countries appears to view
> as an answer.  Brazil was quite explicit on this yesterday.  If it doesn't
> happen in the IGF, where do you think everyone excluded from the US-EU
> dialogue
> will take it?


If they want to talk about critical resources, then they should take it to
the appropriate existing forum.

 My money's on the ITU.  Do you prefer that to an open
> multistakeholder discussion in a nonbiding forum?


Course not, they haven't a clue how to manage critical resources.

I'm not clear what your point is with respect to the technical discussion
> you
> forwarded.


See above.


>  Does that mean that governments
> have no right to take an interest in public policy aspects, or that CS
> should
> not try to have a dialogue with them in order to encourage good policies
> and
> discourage bad ones?  Should we just tell them to sit down, be quiet, and
> eat
> their Wheaties?


No we should tell them (capacity building again) that there are tables at
which they can sit that are already doing some of these public policy
issues, and that they are welcome.  That they haven't (by and large) come to
the table and are insisting on making one for themselves, means that the
folk at the existing tables can and will ignore them if needed.

Hopes this enlightens!

/McTim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060217/34b21dfb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 22:21:42 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 06:21:42 +0300
Subject: [governance] as we are now uncoordinated ...
In-Reply-To: <24F078DF-F2C1-4385-B494-119A43EAE96C@acm.org>
References: <24F078DF-F2C1-4385-B494-119A43EAE96C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0602171921t2c1345bbi68b76a0772a75454@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> as of today, with the IGF consultations being over, the second of the
> IGC coordinators has ceased coordinating us.
>
> i want to thank Adam and Jeanette for all they have done as
> coordinators and thank them for putting up with us.  they did a lot
> to put this caucus on the map, and to give CS a voice that is being
> heard.



Hear hear!!

i looking forward to continuing to work with them as fellow caucus
> participants.  although picking on them just wont be as much fun as
> it used to be.


;-)


--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060218/6ad7f84e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Feb 18 01:14:55 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:44:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the moreprogressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitte
In-Reply-To: <s3f5a7b3.061@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <200602180611.k1I6BbRe033239@trout.cpsr.org>



Hi Milton,


[snip]
>>But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
>>commitment to para 72. (Parminder)

>I don't know what you are talking about. I and Bill Drake have been leading
the charge against any narrowing of the IGF's activities. >>>> (Milton)


But I think you have not followed the discussions on the IG list, which is
the established forum for discussions within the caucus.....

Because if you did youd realize that I begun these series of comments after
a draft submission from IG caucus for IGF consultation was submitted and the
part 2 of this submission clearly had the effect of narrowing IGF
activities. And that this proposal met a series of 'ayes' other than Karen's
and Bertrand's. 

The submission in its part 2 excluded issues of (1) IGF as wider public
policy discussion space (2) access and affordability and (3) critical
Internet resources. And the first point of the submission highlighted that
IGF shd take issues that are do not fall within the scope on any exiting
body, and spoke of 'light' issues like exchange of best practices etc. (I am
enclosing that draft if you have not seen it)

All other elements in submission's part 2 were from para 72, and exclusion
of these most imp elements obviously alarmed me. Bill has since argued that
this was only a first level 'text dump' but the time was just one day prior
to the IGF meeting, and a series of ayes had come in and hardly any
opposition (please note that). So I had to oppose it strongly. And in
opposing such a formulation it is very legitimate for me to argue

>>But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
>>commitment to para 72.

Why should I be wrong in saying the above in a manner of internal
contestation in the group, at this stage under conditions explained above. 

And then, there has been a series of emails on this list that did express
doubts on the need of issues of 'access' and 'critical internet resources'
to be within IGF mandate. Since these issues are there in para 72 - would
such an argument not mean curtailing IGF's mandate from even the currently
'agreed' one. In this context, I also quoted EU's submission on the first
day calling for 'full compliance to para 72'. In light of this, the draft
caucus submission and subsequent discussions on the list certainly did NOT
make it look to me as if CS is very active in favor of a wider mandate for
IGF rather than a narrower. 

It is great if you and Bill have been actively pushing for it, but I have
been responding to discussions on the list, and not your submissions which I
haven't had the opportunity to see. But generally I do know and believe that
both you and Bill have always pushed a wider un-restricted mandate for IGF.


>> but the fact is that you're just wrong in your assertions and you need to
face that fact and back down.>>

Please judge my assertions in the context in which they have been made, and
not in the context of your and Bill's submission (which since they have not
been shared on this list, I don't know much about). 

>> We have enough real battles going on here. We don't need to fight phantom
ones.>>

Milton, I will let you judge if this battle on this list is a phantom one
vis a vis yours real one. I see much substance, especially political
substance, in this 'phantom' battle. You are only adding to earlier
instances of impatience on this list to dissent in asking me to face the
facts and back down. I didn't hear you ask those to back down who have
argued on this list that they will prefer IGF to not take up all the
functions that are listed in para 72.  

Regards

Parminder  


________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 
-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:08 PM
To: parminder at itforchange.net
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the moreprogressive
elements of IGF functions ommitte


Hello, Parminder.  

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 2/17/2006 5:51 AM >>>
>First of all, I must clarify that IGF is clearly mandated as a public
policy
>discussion space (along with research, presenting policy options etc) and
no

[snip] 

>Two, it is being argued that that IGF should take up only such issues that
>are not at present dealt with other organizations. (despite the operational
>para 72 interpreting IGF function much more widely).  

[snip]
>But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
>commitment to para 72.

I don't know what you are talking about. I and Bill Drake have been leading
the charge against any narrowing of the IGF's activities. Our comments were
considered so provokative that EU people went around sounding out other CS
people as to whether they agreed with us. (As far as I know, everyone here
does.) The Australian delegate went out of his way today to counter our
comments.  

I understand that it is hard to keep up with a process you are not attending
and that all the emails flying about are hard to keep up with, but the fact
is that you're just wrong in your assertions and you need to face that fact
and back down. 

We have enough real battles going on here. We don't need to fight phantom
ones. 
 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CS-intervention-Geneva-consultation-forum-j-j.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 41984 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060218/50b4dc79/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Feb 18 08:06:10 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:06:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] intervention draft - why are the	moreprogressive
	elements of IGF functions ommitte
Message-ID: <s3f6d594.037@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 2/18/2006 1:14 AM >>>
>But I think you have not followed the discussions on the 
>IG list, which is the established forum for discussions within 
>the caucus.....

True to some extent, I skimmed the first half of the proposed statement and completely overlooked the second half, and when I did eventually read the second half (because of your objections) found that part of the statement irrelevant and supported those (including Jeanette) who said we could just dump it entirely. 

But more importantly, I don't like these last-minute statements and often ignore them entirely. It imposes a huge burden on people to negotiate these things over the list hours before engaging in international travel. For those of us with very demanding jobs, this is difficult. 

Since IGP had already made a timely and substantive contribution, I lacked interest in these last-minute efforts. True, the caucus has the potential to represent a larger number of people than IGP, but if it cannot act in time that does not represent an advantage.

The most rational thing the caucus did in its physical meeting here was to back off making any formal statement as a caucus, and letting the members here speak as individuals! 

>The submission in its part 2 excluded issues of (1) IGF as wider 
>public policy discussion space (2) access and affordability 
>and (3) critical Internet resources. 

I think the intent of the drafters was to paraphrase in order to make things shorter and in so doing they eliminated language important to you (and others). But this was done unconsciously and inadvertently, as far as I can tell. The whole thing was just abortive.

>And then, there has been a series of emails on this list that 
>did express doubts on the need of issues of 'access' and 
>'critical internet resources' to be within IGF mandate.

For critical internet resources, there is no opposition as far as I know. How could "internet resources" be outside the mandate of an IGF? 

For "access" there is a legitimate debate on whether that is a global internet governance issue or primarily a domestic telecom policy issue. Some of us (e.g., me) sincerely believe that access issues must be confronted primarily in the context of national, local and sometimes regional telecom and development policies. I have substantial experience with China and a few other developing countries. Global institutions played a very minor role in the huge expansion of infrastructure and access there in the past 15 years. 

Global agencies such as UN or a Forum with no money cannot make any substantial contribution to the expansion of internet access. By insisting on pushing access issues in these weak global agencies, one can actually harm progress by diverting attention and resources away from the more critical policy arenas affecting access. 

>Please judge my assertions in the context in which they 
>have been made, and not in the context of your and Bill's 
>submission (which since they have not
>been shared on this list, I don't know much about). 

Actually my comments were put on the list within an hour of being presented here, but again, I don't blame anyone for not being able to read all that stuff. 

>You are only adding to earlier
>instances of impatience on this list to dissent 

Yes, I think it is a fair charge that people are impatient with dissent on the list. The problem is that everyone is stressed out by the need to coordinate some kind of response (herding 300 cats) under substantial time pressure, doing all this work voluntarily. 

It is fair to complain that caucus leaders did not handle this well. But it is also fair to point out that the current co-chairs asked for volunteers to replace them months ago. NOT A SINGLE PERSON responded!!! 

So there is frustration all around. I am willing to hear your views, always, make no mistake about that. Fortunately I do not have to manage the caucus.

>I didn't hear you ask those to back down who have
>argued on this list that they will prefer IGF to not take up all the
>functions that are listed in para 72.  

I guess I have not seen anyone argue that, unless you are talking about the "access" debate. But I could miss stuff. I read the list selectively, I confess. 

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Feb 18 08:12:10 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:12:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] as we are now uncoordinated ...
Message-ID: <s3f6d6fc.061@gwia201.syr.edu>

Ditto. The best tribute may be the lack of volunteers to replace them. 

>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 2/17/2006 12:25 PM >>>
>i want to thank Adam and Jeanette for all they have done as  
>coordinators and thank them for putting up with us.  they did a lot  
>to put this caucus on the map, and to give CS a voice that is being  
>heard.




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


From apeake at gmail.com  Sat Feb 18 12:25:25 2006
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:25:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments - afternoon, Friday
Message-ID: <f31ae3560602180925n4fe3008eid25c5c4a957ba1ae@mail.gmail.com>

Nitin Desai closed the morning session of yesterday's forum meeting by
asking people to think about what he thought to be a few key
questions.

Over lunch a bunch of us (Avri, Bertrand, Annette, Karen, Bill,
Milton, Carlos, Wolfgang, Vitorrio, Jeanette and me -- hope I am not
forgetting anyone?) tried to come up with simple answers to all the
questions.  I read a summary, please see below.  Apologies for all
CAPS.

Could someone summarize the 2 or 3 questions Nitin left us with, and
describe the process over the next 10 (9) days?

Adam




MR CHAIRMAN.   THANK YOU.

A FEW CS PEOPLE HERE HAVE TRIED TO COME UP WITH ANSWERS TO THE CHAIR'S
QUESTIONS.  I WILL GO THROUGH A SUMMARY OF OUR THOUGHTS.

Q. MEMBERSHIP OF THE PC (AND WE AGREE ON PC)
A. QUITE SIMPLE: ALL STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD BE REPRESENTED, EQUALLY AND AS
EQUALS.  ALL REGIONS SHOULD BE REPRESENTED.  MUCH WE CAN ALL LEARN
FROM WGIG PROCESS IN TERMS OF SELECTION AND COMPOSITION, BUT
ESSENTIALLY MORE BALANCED IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION.  WE ARE VERY
AWARE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE OF THE FORUM.

THE PC SHOULD NOT BE AN ADVOCACY SPACE, NOT SOMETHING PEOPLE LOBBY TO
GET THEIR PET ISSUE TAKEN UP.  A TRUSTED GROUP THAT WORKS TO CONSIDER
SUGGESTIONS FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS.

WE SUGGEST WORKING LEVEL (REFLECTS A QUESTION IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE.0


Q. WHAT SHOULD THE MEETING DO?
A. WE HAVE BEEN HEARING DIFFERENT IDEAS: THE SELECTION OF THEMES
(AND WHAT SELECTION SUGGESTS) AGAINST THEMES THAT EMERGE FROM
DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION.  THEMES THAT EVOLVE.  WE DO HAVE TIME FOR
CONSIDERATION.
STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT HORIZONTAL ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED.


Q. DUPLICATION. DON'T DO WHAT IS BEING DONE ELSEWHERE.
A. WE'D SUGGEST THAT NOTHING IS BEING DONE ELSEWHERE. PERHAPS THE
ABSOLUTE "NOTHING" IS TOO STRONG .  WHAT WE MEAN IS ISSUES MAY BE
BEING ADDRESSED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A MEETING OR A PROCESS BUT THEY
ARE MOST LIKELY NOT BEING ADDRESSED IN A MULTIDIMENSIONAL WAY, NOT
CONSIDERING CROSS CUTTING, GAPS, ETC.  SO THERE IS NOTHING THAT SHOULD
BE EXCLUDED (BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN EVERYTHING SHOULD BE INCLUDED.)

Q. TAKING UP CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES?
A. WHAT'S CONTROVERSIAL FOR ME MAY NOT BE FOR YOU.
SOLUTIONS MIGHT BE CONTROVERSIAL, TOPICS SHOULD NOT BE (OR HOW WILL WE
EVER MAKE PROGRESS?)


Q. DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE.
A. WE BELIEVE CAPACITY BUILDING IS CRITICAL (AND THERE ARE PROPOSALS
ABOUT THIS FROM SOME CS MEMBERS.) HOWEVER CAPACITY BUILDING  IS NOT
THE BE ALL AND END ALL, THE FOCUS OF THE FORUM SHOULD BE ON ENSURING
THAT DEVELOPING NATIONS ARE HEARD, DEVELOPING NATION ISSUES ARE
PRIORITIZED, AND LEAD BY PEOPLE FROM DEVELOPING NATIONS.


Q. MEETINGS.
A. WE THINK THE 3 DAYS AS WE UNDERSTAND SUGGESTED NOW IS TOO SHORT --
RECOGNIZING THE SENSE OF BRAZIL'S COMMENTS.
WE ARE BEGINNING A NEW PROCESS, ANY PILOT (AND THE ATHENS MEETING WILL
BE A PILOT) MAY REQUIRE MORE TIME RATHER THAN LESS.  LET'S TAKE OUR
TIME ENJOYING ATHENS.

IF WE BEGAN ON A TUESDAY, THE MONDAY ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES A
DAY FOR STAKEHOLDER, THEMATIC OR OTHER PREPARATIONS.


Q.  2ND ROUND OF CONSULTATIONS.
A. YES -- SO LONG AS THEY ARE MULTISTAKEHOLDER AND HELD IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A MEETING OF THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE.  AND BE SUPPORTED BY PRIOR
ONLINE PROCESS.  WE CAN LEARN MUCH FROM THE WGIG CONSULTATION PROCESS.


Q. RELATIONS WITH THE UN, LEARNING FORM UN, LINKAGES, ETC.
A. ONLY CONCERN IS ABOUT THE MEANING/UNDERSTANDING OF WORKING GROUP.  WE
THINK THEY ARE GOOD AND SEE THEM AS THE LIGHT, INTERNET COMMUNITY
TYPE.


Q.  RESOURCING (how to support/resource the forum?)
A. LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THE IDEA OF SUPPORTING THE SECRETARIAT THROUGH A
DISTRIBUTE PLAN OF WORK.  DESIGN A WORK PLAN AND THEN INVITE PEOPLE TO
SUPPORT THE SECRETARIAT IN ENSURING IT'S COMPLETED. (SIMILAR I THINK
TO JOHN MATHIASON'S SUGGESTION)


Q. DEFINITION OF SUCCESS.
A. VERY BRIEFLY - WE ENVISAGE A PROCESS, SO SUCCESS WILL CONTINUATION OF
THE PROCESS. E.G ONGOING DISCUSSION, WORK ON BEST PRACTISES, SHARED
LEARNING.

THANK YOU.

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


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sat Feb 18 17:26:03 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 23:26:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] Design framework for IGF
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0602151535o697f39bdv66808389240800a6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a06230916c018a56d938b@10.59.1.9>
	<954259bd0602151535o697f39bdv66808389240800a6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a06230901c01d39306584@[10.59.1.9]>

Thanks much for next steps in the thinking.  (Have been in the belly 
of the consultation - now am coughed up, to keyboard another day ... 
sorry for the hiatus, in response.)

A few next next thoughts below.  In general, this is a subject on 
which my first paper goes back over fifteen years now.  The 
organizing rubric has been 'standardization and innovation.'  Though 
order and chaos is more general, and there is a remarkably wide range 
of applications.

However:  Concatenated community structure - but especially its 
operation and evolution, via shared protocols - lie, really, at the 
heart of any useful understanding.  Dynamic change is the essence - 
in a real sense there is not a static starting point and therefore 
not a static representation.  And some will of course also point at 
the Santa Fe Institute, et al.  But all that goes to some detail - 
which is entirely beyond our more practical design purposes here.

At 12:35 AM +0100 2/16/06, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>Dear David,
>
>Interesting contribution. A few general remarks.
>
>1) yes, fleshing out differences explictely early on in processes 
>usually allows for better communications later on. Diplomatic 
>discourse works a lot in the implicit, making understanding each 
>other's positions more difficult.

A fundamental problem, certainly revealed in the five or so years of 
WSIS, as only one for instance - we all, including diplomats, need to 
be able to get to what matters, so we can work on it.  As Keynes 
said, in the long run we are dead.  We only have so much time to get 
results; we need to get on with it rather than temporize.

You begin, I think, to lay out how that might be done - diplomatically:

>Initial stage in dealing with an "issue of common concern or 
>interest" is to get all stakeholders to descibe their understanding 
>of the issue from their "point of view" (litterally from where they 
>observe it). This does not require them to relinquish whatever 
>opinion they have but allows them to integrate opther elements of a 
>more global picture. Same object from a different angle, or the 
>traditional five blind men and the elephant story.
>
>This initial process does provide a more complete common picture of 
>what an issue is about, and what the respective positions of actors 
>are. This provides a better starting point for further discussions.

For me anyway, you begin to describe how incommensurable frameworks 
may be brought to the surface reasonably expeditiously.  We need to 
focus on what otherwise otherwise would be implicit and invisible 
conceptual frameworks - rather than struggle over surface tussles.

When we get the frameworks out, we can see where the immediate 
disagreements come from.  That does not make a bridge.  But it makes 
clear where a bridge must be built, if there ever is to be 
resolution.  Otherwise, the struggle goes on endlessly, with no real 
prospect for resolution.

>  2) Dialectic process. The alternance between standardization and 
>innovation phases is a dynamic mechanism worth refering to. In 
>governance, you could also consider a combination of two notions : 
>"initiation" and "validation".
>
>An broad right of initiative is essential to put issues early on the 
>agenda. The progressive constitution of interest groups, then more 
>and more formal working groups and drafting groups (as need arises) 
>leads to a second phase of validation / adoption of the results 
>(report, recommendation, regimes proposals, etc...) before they are 
>implemented by the concerned stakehollders.

Indeed.

As said, the papers go into some detail, including for instance how 
there is a switchover, between experimentation and consensus 
formation.  Your initiation and validation are, for me, helpful 
alternate formulations.

>This "organic", more biological-like approach (akin to the 
>activation-repression of genes expression) contrasts with the 
>mechanical, "checks and balances" approach of most existing 
>governance mechanisms, particularly representative democracy.

In my view, a most especially important line of thought.  Community 
processes are what human beings respond to.  They are what determine 
choices, by and large.  Only if voting procedures, as just one for 
instance, reinforce such, will they likely be useful in any long run. 
(World news just now is all too confirming of problems with voting, 
if taken in a vacuum.)

Comparisons with the biological is one of the areas for interesting debate.

>3) Starting up the process. In line with your comments on plenary 
>and program committee (informal/formal), the first meeting in Athens 
>is an opportunity to test and implement very open modalities and to 
>later formalize them into simple protocols; the next meeting 
>and possible intermediary ones relaunching the cycle in order for 
>the Forum to progressively get its final shape.
>
>The process here could be the opposite of the lengthy (multi-year) 
>diplomatic negociations before the establishment of new 
>international organizations. The iterative approach here would be : 
>move forward, test modalities, identify the best ones, formalize 
>them somewhat, then repeat the process....

If we should be so fortunate to - be able to - 'learn progressively,' 
what I take to be the essence of the community process ...

>  4) Microcosm. All these concepts are somewhat fractal, 
>self-referential and, yes, self-similar at different scales.

The very essence of concatenation.

>We are establishing a framework defining how activities can be set 
>up, and the establishment of this framework is, in itself, one of 
>the activities it should allow.

Indeed.

>
>  Traditional political science makes a clear distinction between the 
>constitutional phase determining an institutional framework and the 
>normal legislative activities taking place afterwards within it. The 
>US constitution is 200 years old

A mere infant, by comparison with 5,000+ year-old civilizations 
around the world - and all the cumulated learning (and ossification 
...) those multi-millennial histories represent.

>and the rare amendments are not adopted through the normal 
>legislative process, but through a special procedure.
>
>But here, the initial definition of the framework (how the Forum is 
>composed and will function) and its modification on an ongoing basis 
>will be obtained through the normal procedures that the forum will 
>use for its day-to-day activities. This should be a typical example 
>of a bootstrapping, self-establishing process, without a clear 
>Constitutional phase.
>
>I hope these comments will not look too abstract. And for the 
>moment, we will have to focus on the concrete aspects of how to set 
>up the first meeting. But thanks for giving me the opportunity 
>to put down some thoughts I have carried for a long time.
>
>Best
>
>Bertrand

One of the greatest challenges is to mix [fundamental] 
ideas-that-matter with practical choices for today - the two are 
often at opposite ends of the scale.  We face just that challenge, in 
trying to bring together the fruits of research and the wisdom of 
practical experience - in IGF.

(For reference, in the paper index at 
http://www.davidallen.org/pages/paprindx.html a reasonably full piece 
is labeled Liberal Evolution.  Convoluted, I am afraid, to serve a 
particular purpose for that paper.  Paper labeled Dynamic Policy, 
published in Sweden, does some of the same, though earlier.  The 
original, years ago, is labeled Innovation and Standardization, the 
version at the bottom of the page.  Nor have I had the time to write 
the comprehensive paper I would like, for today's debate milieu. 
Mainly, none of this is necessary for our practical design purposes - 
only of concern for those who might like to take the paradigm 
further, or try to debunk it.  And so why I expect further on this to 
be omitted / to be taken up offline ...

(So, everyone else should ignore ...)

David

>
>
>On 2/15/06, David Allen 
><<mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu>David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> 
>wrote:
>
>For those who may be interested, I have posted a piece on a framework
>for design of IGF.
>
> 
><http://davidallen.org/papers/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf>http://davidallen.org/papers/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf
>
>(If a letter size version is helpful, substitute LTR for A4 in the URL.)
>
>David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060218/3f320dda/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From wsis at ngocongo.org  Mon Feb 20 09:34:09 2006
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:34:09 +0100
Subject: [governance] WSIS Action Line Facilitation
Message-ID: <200602201433.k1KEXrpI004191@mta-gw1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

Please find below a message recently sent by Charles Geiger to all missions
and WSIS stakeholders concerning up-coming meetings organised by ITU on
facilitation for Action Lines C2 and C5. 

 

A calendar of post-WSIS meetings is available at
http://www.csbureau.org/posttunis.htm. 

 

Best regards, 

 

Philippe

 

  _____  

De : Marie-Isabelle Asencio 
Objet : WSIS Action Line Facilitation - Invitation letters

 

To all Missions in Geneva
(and to Missions in New York for States without Mission in Geneva)

Message to all stakeholders 

Dear Sir, Madam,

On behalf of the ITU Secretary-General, please find enclosed two invitations
letters: 

1-  WSIS Action Line Facilitation: Consultation on Information and
Communication Infrastructure (C2), to be held in Doha, Qatar, on the
afternoon of 9 March, during the ITU World Telecommunication Development
Conference (WTDC-06);

2- WSIS Action Line Facilitation: Building confidence and security in the
use of ICTs (C5), to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, at 9am, on 15-16 May,
at the ITU Headquarters.

 

Please find also attached the Draft Agendas and Registration Forms for both
meetings open to all WSIS stakeholders. 

Yours faithfully, 

Charles Geiger 
Executive Director WSIS 

 

<<invitation C2.doc>> <<C2-agenda.doc>> <<C2-registration.doc>> 
<<C5-invitation.doc>> <<C5-agenda.doc>> <<C5-registration.doc>> 







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060220/462b1d05/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: invitation C2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060220/462b1d05/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: C2-agenda.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 20992 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060220/462b1d05/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: C2-registration.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 39424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060220/462b1d05/attachment-0002.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: C5-invitation.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 32768 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060220/462b1d05/attachment-0003.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: C5-agenda.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 148992 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060220/462b1d05/attachment-0004.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: C5-registration.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33280 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060220/462b1d05/attachment-0005.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From Mueller at syr.edu  Mon Feb 20 09:40:09 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:40:09 -0500
Subject: [governance] Comments - afternoon, Friday
Message-ID: <s3f98e94.002@gwia201.syr.edu>

Some comments below. I assume that this will be our response to Desai's call for comments in 10 days on the structure of the program committee? 

>>> apeake at gmail.com 2/18/2006 12:25 PM >>>

Q. MEMBERSHIP OF THE PC (AND WE AGREE ON PC)
>A. QUITE SIMPLE: ALL STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD BE REPRESENTED, EQUALLY AND AS
>EQUALS.  ALL REGIONS SHOULD BE REPRESENTED.  MUCH WE CAN ALL LEARN
>FROM WGIG PROCESS IN TERMS OF SELECTION AND COMPOSITION, BUT
>ESSENTIALLY MORE BALANCED IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION.  WE ARE VERY
>AWARE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE OF THE FORUM.

I would prefer that you strike the WGIG reference, and that you add something about keeping it small. No more than 15. WGIG was a deliberative and drafting body, and we DON'T want the program committee to be that. We also DON'T want it to have 40 members. If that happens, all the important deliberation shifts from the open process to a closed committee. And people think it is more and more important to be on the PC rather than participating in the process.

The idea is that the PC should be a minimal size required to represent, but should also have very limited powers. E.g., PC does not "pick" themes and force us to discuss them, it simply approves and prioritizes themes proposed by Working Groups.

THE PC SHOULD NOT BE AN ADVOCACY SPACE, NOT SOMETHING PEOPLE LOBBY TO
GET THEIR PET ISSUE TAKEN UP.  A TRUSTED GROUP THAT WORKS TO CONSIDER
SUGGESTIONS FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS.

WE SUGGEST WORKING LEVEL (REFLECTS A QUESTION IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE.0

Here again, I am suspicious of "consider suggestions." Instead, I would like to see a formal process for creating working groups around specific themes, and the PC simply eliminates those that are out of scope or badly drafted, and conslidates duplicative suggestions. But it does not decide on its own what the themes are or should be. 




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


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Mon Feb 20 10:06:28 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:06:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] Comments - afternoon, Friday
In-Reply-To: <s3f98e94.002@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3f98e94.002@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <1140447988.7325.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Il giorno lun, 20/02/2006 alle 09.40 -0500, Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> >EQUALS.  ALL REGIONS SHOULD BE REPRESENTED.  MUCH WE CAN ALL LEARN
> >FROM WGIG PROCESS IN TERMS OF SELECTION AND COMPOSITION, BUT
> >ESSENTIALLY MORE BALANCED IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION.  WE ARE VERY
> >AWARE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE OF THE FORUM.
> 
> I would prefer that you strike the WGIG reference, and that you add
> something about keeping it small. No more than 15.

Actually, plenty of governments made quite clear that they don't see it
feasible to have less than 15 gov reps as a very minimum, due to their
internal balance problems. If we insist on making it small, I am sure
that the ones to disappear from the Committee would be the
non-governmental people, not the governmental ones... or that they would
go for the solution that most developing countries are pushing, i.e.
three separate bureaus, as it was in WSIS, "so that each of them is more
manageable". Needless to say that the CSB and PSB would then become
completely meaningless.

> The idea is that the PC should be a minimal size required to
> represent, but should also have very limited powers. E.g., PC does not
> "pick" themes and force us to discuss them, it simply approves and
> prioritizes themes proposed by Working Groups.

Agree.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon Feb 20 10:45:05 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:45:05 -0500
Subject: [governance] Comments - afternoon, Friday
Message-ID: <43F9E401.6080201@lists.privaterra.org>


I for one would prefer not to have a separate CS bureau. There is
considerable value and trust building that occurs when one is involved
as an equal to the other stakeholders.

Now if a CS bureau is formed for the IGF, then I would suggest that it
be created and not built on nor structured on the CSB that existed
during the WSIS process.

May I recall that   I've made two, i think even three calls over the
past months  for the existing Civil Society Bureau to be reviewed.

>From my point of view, it has a real lack of legitimacy.  It's members
were elected and/or appointed long ago, it is over populated by Tunisian
NGOs and agents, and currently run effectively by only one organization.

keen to hear comments of others.

regards

Robert



Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Actually, plenty of governments made quite clear that they don't seeit feasible to have less than 15 gov reps as a very minimum, due to
their internal balance problems. If we insist on making it small, I am
sure that the ones to disappear from the Committee would be the
non-governmental people, not the governmental ones... or that they would
go for the solution that most developing countries are pushing, i.e.
three separate bureaus, as it was in WSIS, "so that each of them is more
manageable". Needless to say that the CSB and PSB would then become
completely meaningless.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3513 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060220/1573d6e9/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From avri at psg.com  Mon Feb 20 11:08:44 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:08:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF next steps
Message-ID: <2E24D7DE-621D-4590-8EF7-64341CF12D2B@psg.com>

Hi,

The IGF web site has been updated: http://www.intgovforum.org/
especially noteworthy are the calls for contributions on:

- Whether there is a need for a multistakeholder group to prepare for  
the meeting.
- Which public policy issues the first meeting of the IGF should  
address.

All stakeholders are invited to submit their views on these questions.

Please let us know what your views are on:

a) The need for a multistakeholder group to assist the the Secretary- 
General in convening the IGF, what the mandate of this group should  
be and how it should be formed.
Please submit your comments by 28 February 2006.

b) Public policy issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF.
Please let us know your top three choices and give a short  
explanation on the reasons for your choices by 31 March 2006.

a.

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


From raul at lacnic.net  Mon Feb 20 12:42:00 2006
From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:42:00 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGF next steps
In-Reply-To: <2E24D7DE-621D-4590-8EF7-64341CF12D2B@psg.com>
References: <2E24D7DE-621D-4590-8EF7-64341CF12D2B@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060220144112.03cb6ad0@lacnic.net>


I think that these questions have been already 
answered both in the public comments and in the meeting last week.

Raúl


At 01:08 p.m. 20/02/2006, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The IGF web site has been updated: http://www.intgovforum.org/
>especially noteworthy are the calls for contributions on:
>
>- Whether there is a need for a multistakeholder group to prepare for
>the meeting.
>- Which public policy issues the first meeting of the IGF should
>address.
>
>All stakeholders are invited to submit their views on these questions.
>
>Please let us know what your views are on:
>
>a) The need for a multistakeholder group to assist the the Secretary-
>General in convening the IGF, what the mandate of this group should
>be and how it should be formed.
>Please submit your comments by 28 February 2006.
>
>b) Public policy issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF.
>Please let us know your top three choices and give a short
>explanation on the reasons for your choices by 31 March 2006.
>
>a.
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 17/02/2006



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


From avri at psg.com  Mon Feb 20 17:56:20 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:56:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF next steps
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060220144112.03cb6ad0@lacnic.net>
References: <2E24D7DE-621D-4590-8EF7-64341CF12D2B@psg.com>
	<7.0.1.0.0.20060220144112.03cb6ad0@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <6ECC13B3-FF48-46F2-8F44-426347BB8917@psg.com>

hi,

yes.  but if you remember Nitin's last comments, he did establish  
these two questions and the first deadline.

and who knows, maybe some of the dialogue during the meeting has  
caused some to reconsider, not to mention the G77 request that they  
be given time to think about the difference between a bureau and a  
multistakeholder program committee.

as for the topics, while many people mentioned the topics or topics  
they where interested in, now that we have a discussed set of  
candidates, it makes sense to get an idea of the top 3 priorities for  
year 1 on each respondent's list.

a.

On 20 feb 2006, at 18.42, Raul Echeberria wrote:

>
> I think that these questions have been already answered both in the  
> public comments and in the meeting last week.
>
> Raúl
>
>
> At 01:08 p.m. 20/02/2006, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The IGF web site has been updated: http://www.intgovforum.org/
>> especially noteworthy are the calls for contributions on:
>>
>> - Whether there is a need for a multistakeholder group to prepare for
>> the meeting.
>> - Which public policy issues the first meeting of the IGF should
>> address.
>>
>> All stakeholders are invited to submit their views on these  
>> questions.
>>
>> Please let us know what your views are on:
>>
>> a) The need for a multistakeholder group to assist the the Secretary-
>> General in convening the IGF, what the mandate of this group should
>> be and how it should be formed.
>> Please submit your comments by 28 February 2006.
>>
>> b) Public policy issues to be discussed at the first meeting of  
>> the IGF.
>> Please let us know your top three choices and give a short
>> explanation on the reasons for your choices by 31 March 2006.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date:  
>> 17/02/2006
>
>
>


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


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Feb 20 18:14:33 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:14:33 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGF next steps
In-Reply-To: <6ECC13B3-FF48-46F2-8F44-426347BB8917@psg.com>
References: <2E24D7DE-621D-4590-8EF7-64341CF12D2B@psg.com>	<7.0.1.0.0.20060220144112.03cb6ad0@lacnic.net>
	<6ECC13B3-FF48-46F2-8F44-426347BB8917@psg.com>
Message-ID: <43FA4D59.9050401@rits.org.br>

Actually they were not answered, as the comments did not follow any rule 
and were not consolidated and approved in some way. You might say some 
answers reside in the many comments, but this needs to be more precisely 
done and some consensus is to be built as follow-up, so Nitin was right 
in asking for this.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Avri Doria wrote:
> hi,
> 
> yes.  but if you remember Nitin's last comments, he did establish  
> these two questions and the first deadline.
> 
> and who knows, maybe some of the dialogue during the meeting has  
> caused some to reconsider, not to mention the G77 request that they  
> be given time to think about the difference between a bureau and a  
> multistakeholder program committee.
> 
> as for the topics, while many people mentioned the topics or topics  
> they where interested in, now that we have a discussed set of  
> candidates, it makes sense to get an idea of the top 3 priorities for  
> year 1 on each respondent's list.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 20 feb 2006, at 18.42, Raul Echeberria wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think that these questions have been already answered both in the  
>>public comments and in the meeting last week.
>>
>>Raúl
>>
>>
>>At 01:08 p.m. 20/02/2006, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>The IGF web site has been updated: http://www.intgovforum.org/
>>>especially noteworthy are the calls for contributions on:
>>>
>>>- Whether there is a need for a multistakeholder group to prepare for
>>>the meeting.
>>>- Which public policy issues the first meeting of the IGF should
>>>address.
>>>
>>>All stakeholders are invited to submit their views on these  
>>>questions.
>>>
>>>Please let us know what your views are on:
>>>
>>>a) The need for a multistakeholder group to assist the the Secretary-
>>>General in convening the IGF, what the mandate of this group should
>>>be and how it should be formed.
>>>Please submit your comments by 28 February 2006.
>>>
>>>b) Public policy issues to be discussed at the first meeting of  
>>>the IGF.
>>>Please let us know your top three choices and give a short
>>>explanation on the reasons for your choices by 31 March 2006.
>>>
>>>a.
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>governance mailing list
>>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date:  
>>>17/02/2006
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 22 07:50:32 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:20:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] need to push a 'development agenda' in IGF
In-Reply-To: <s3f6d594.036@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <200602221247.k1MCl7wm064705@trout.cpsr.org>

Milton,

I am sorry I missed your intervention, but now I read it, and support it
wholly. 

>>> For critical internet resources, there is no opposition as far as I
know. How could "internet resources" be outside the mandate of an IGF?>>>

There, in fact, was opposition to this issue on this list, apart from
opposition to access issue. At least two emails clearly expressed
opposition, and Bill, while saying he agrees to inclusion of this issue,
acknowledged differences on the list. 

Some others seem to lean towards the view that IGF need only take up issues
that are not at present dealt elsewhere. 

As for the 'access and affordability' issue, I think it goes beyond simple
infrastructural access. Many IG issues implicate on access and
affordability, of content/information for example. The cost of domain
registration itself could be one, multilingualism is another, and there are
other issues like of network neutrality that lie more in the future could
have great access and affordability implication. As you argued so well in
your intervention, after all IGF is not making any decisions, so why cut off
any issue at all from its ambit. And when we speak of access and
affordability issue we certainly do not mean that IGF become the place for
negotiating telecom treaties. But much of the future regarding internet
issues is indeterminate. It does no one any harm if IGF is clearly mandated
that its discussion should always be informed by access and affordability
perspectives. If IG had an IPR connection I cant see how access and
affordability of information issue can be far behind.  Access to Internet is
of course promoted if there is affordable and useful content on the
internet. 

Too much insistence that these issues be clearly kept out makes one feel
that the issues of socio-economic justice are not being considered
important. The debate regarding socio-economic neutrality of technology or
otherwise is an established one in development discourse. But many seem to
insist on going back and insisting on such neutrality. "Access and
affordability' are the only two words in the IGF part of WSIS docs which
represent such equity issues - why not just let them be. This issue is so
important that we can even do with some redundancy. 

In the present geo-political scenario there is no danger of an
over-discussion of development issues. If anything, global public policy
spaces are only bring constricted in terms of development issues - or the
issue of development is given different spins that are more acceptable to
the dominant interests. 

WIPO is the obvious example - and the attempts to include development
issues/ agenda and resistance to it, are instructive. In this context, it
becomes important that enough spaces are created in public policy body at
their conception itself to accommodate progressive agendas. It is therefore
important that we are less apologetic and more aggressive about a
development agenda in IGF. Whatever structures emerge for IGF (working
groups etc), 'development agenda' should be strongly accounted for. And CS
needs to have an active role in this process. We need also to resist
'capacity building' kinds of spins filling up the 'development' space. 

As I argued earlier, no is no real danger of 'such irrelevant issues' taking
all the spaces. There are powerful players who will ensure this doesn't
happen. We need to realize how different constituencies are situated in the
power matrix - and countries from the North, (without meaning offense) also
CS for the North does and will continue to dominate the agenda more that
south based interests. 

In this context identifying and siding with lesser represented voices and
interests should be the natural thing to do for the CS. But this often
hasn't happened in our representations. 

It may be necessary to form an interest group for pushing 'development
agenda' in IG if the main IG CS group isn't too interested in this issue. In
fact, a good research study that explores and identifies present and
potential 'development issues' including of access and affordability, in IG
would be useful starting point. Will IG Project be interested in such a
thing?


Regards

Parminder 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 
-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 6:36 PM
To: parminder at itforchange.net
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] intervention draft - why are themoreprogressive
elements of IGF functions ommitte

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 2/18/2006 1:14 AM >>>
>But I think you have not followed the discussions on the 
>IG list, which is the established forum for discussions within 
>the caucus.....

True to some extent, I skimmed the first half of the proposed statement and
completely overlooked the second half, and when I did eventually read the
second half (because of your objections) found that part of the statement
irrelevant and supported those (including Jeanette) who said we could just
dump it entirely. 

But more importantly, I don't like these last-minute statements and often
ignore them entirely. It imposes a huge burden on people to negotiate these
things over the list hours before engaging in international travel. For
those of us with very demanding jobs, this is difficult. 

Since IGP had already made a timely and substantive contribution, I lacked
interest in these last-minute efforts. True, the caucus has the potential to
represent a larger number of people than IGP, but if it cannot act in time
that does not represent an advantage.

The most rational thing the caucus did in its physical meeting here was to
back off making any formal statement as a caucus, and letting the members
here speak as individuals! 

>The submission in its part 2 excluded issues of (1) IGF as wider 
>public policy discussion space (2) access and affordability 
>and (3) critical Internet resources. 

I think the intent of the drafters was to paraphrase in order to make things
shorter and in so doing they eliminated language important to you (and
others). But this was done unconsciously and inadvertently, as far as I can
tell. The whole thing was just abortive.

>And then, there has been a series of emails on this list that 
>did express doubts on the need of issues of 'access' and 
>'critical internet resources' to be within IGF mandate.

For critical internet resources, there is no opposition as far as I know.
How could "internet resources" be outside the mandate of an IGF? 

For "access" there is a legitimate debate on whether that is a global
internet governance issue or primarily a domestic telecom policy issue. Some
of us (e.g., me) sincerely believe that access issues must be confronted
primarily in the context of national, local and sometimes regional telecom
and development policies. I have substantial experience with China and a few
other developing countries. Global institutions played a very minor role in
the huge expansion of infrastructure and access there in the past 15 years. 

Global agencies such as UN or a Forum with no money cannot make any
substantial contribution to the expansion of internet access. By insisting
on pushing access issues in these weak global agencies, one can actually
harm progress by diverting attention and resources away from the more
critical policy arenas affecting access. 

>Please judge my assertions in the context in which they 
>have been made, and not in the context of your and Bill's 
>submission (which since they have not
>been shared on this list, I don't know much about). 

Actually my comments were put on the list within an hour of being presented
here, but again, I don't blame anyone for not being able to read all that
stuff. 

>You are only adding to earlier
>instances of impatience on this list to dissent 

Yes, I think it is a fair charge that people are impatient with dissent on
the list. The problem is that everyone is stressed out by the need to
coordinate some kind of response (herding 300 cats) under substantial time
pressure, doing all this work voluntarily. 

It is fair to complain that caucus leaders did not handle this well. But it
is also fair to point out that the current co-chairs asked for volunteers to
replace them months ago. NOT A SINGLE PERSON responded!!! 

So there is frustration all around. I am willing to hear your views, always,
make no mistake about that. Fortunately I do not have to manage the caucus.

>I didn't hear you ask those to back down who have
>argued on this list that they will prefer IGF to not take up all the
>functions that are listed in para 72.  

I guess I have not seen anyone argue that, unless you are talking about the
"access" debate. But I could miss stuff. I read the list selectively, I
confess. 

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


From dannyyounger at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 23 08:31:32 2006
From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] NTIA "Request for Information" on the IANA Functions
Message-ID: <20060223133132.16977.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com>

General Information


Document Type:  Sources Sought Notice 
Solicitation Number: Reference-Number-DOCNTIARFI0001 
Posted Date: Feb 21, 2006 
Original Response Date: Mar 07, 2006 
Current Response Date: Mar 07, 2006 
Original Archive Date: Mar 22, 2006 
Current Archive Date: Mar 22, 2006 
Classification Code: D -- Information technology
services, including telecommunications services 
Naics Code: 541519 -- Other Computer Related Services 

Contracting Office Address
Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary,
Commerce Acquisition Solutions, Commerce Information
Technology Solutions, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Room 6514, Washington, DC, 20230


Description
       THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY   
 ?       Solicitations are not available at this time.
    Requests for a solicitation will not receive a
response.     This notice does not constitute a
commitment by the United States Government.

       The Department of Commerce, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
(DOC/NTIA) is exploring options for Contractor
performance of three, interdependent technical
Internet coordinating functions.     In support of the
operation of the Internet domain name and addressing
system, a Contractor would furnish the necessary
personnel, material, equipment, services, and
facilities to perform the following services.    
First, the Contractor would coordinate the assignment
of technical protocol parameters.     This function
would involve the review and assignment of unique
values to numerous parameters (e.g., operation codes,
port numbers, object identifiers, protocol numbers)
used in various Internet protocols.     

This function would also include dissemination of
listings of assigned parameters through various means
(including on-line publication) and the review of
technical documents for consistency with assigned
values.     Second, the Contractor would perform
administrative functions associated with root
management.     This function would primarily involve
facilitation and coordination of the root zone of the
Internet domain name and addressing system.     It
would include receiving requests for and making
routine updates of the country code top level domain
contact and nameserver information. Third, the
Contractor would allocate IPv4 and IPv6 delegations of
IP address space.     

This function would include delegation of IP address
blocks to regional registries for routine allocation,
typically through downstream providers, to Internet
end-users within the regions served by those
registries.     It would also include reservation and
direct allocation of space for special purposes, such
as multicast addressing, addresses for private
networks, and globally specified applications.

The DOC/NTIA is seeking the following information:

1.       Potential Respondents shall describe how they
would propose to successfully perform each of the
three services, assuming that all services provided by
Respondent would be accomplished in accordance with
all applicable U.S. laws, regulations, policies, and
procedures.

2.       Potential Respondents shall describe both
their existing relationships with the following
entities and the extent to which such relationships
would enable Respondents to successfully perform each
of the three services:
       
       a. the Internet engineering community, 

       b. Internet standards development
organizations, 

       c. Regional Internet Registries, 

       d. country code top level domain operators, 

       e. generic and sponsored top level domain
operators, and 

       f. national governments or public authorities
associated with specific country code top level
domains.

3.       Currently, the services are performed under
contract at no cost to the United States Government.  
  Potential Respondents shall describe proposed
financial plans, including, if appropriate, the manner
in which charges levied for services rendered would be
derived.     Charges cannot be based on cost plus a
percentage of cost.

Respondents shall not be obligated to provide the
services described herein and it is understood by the
United States Government that the cost estimates
provided as a result of this request are ?best?
estimates only.

All information submitted in response to this
announcement is voluntary; the United States
Government will not pay for information requested nor
will it compensate any respondent for any cost
incurred in developing information provided to the
United States Government.     The response date for
this market research is March 7, 2006.     No collect
calls will be accepted.     

All responses to this RFI may be submitted via e-mail
to Carol Silverman, Contracting Officer, at
csilverman at doc.gov, courtesy copy to Brendon Johnson,
Contracting Officer, at bjohnson at doc.gov and with a
hard copy to the U. S. Department of Commerce, Office
of Acquisition Management and Financial Assistance,
Commerce Acquisition Solutions Division, 1401
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 6521, Washington, D.C.
    20230. 

Point of Contact
Carol Silverman, Contracting Officer, Phone
202-482-5543 (Room 6521), Fax 202-482-4988, Email
csilverman at doc.gov - Brendon Johnson, Contracting
Officer, Phone 202-482-7401, Fax 202-482-1711, Email
bjohnson at doc.gov

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/OS/OAM/Reference%2DNumber%2DDOCNTIARFI0001/SynopsisR.html

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Fri Feb 24 03:42:50 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:42:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] OECD Workshop: "The Future of the Internet"
Message-ID: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOIEKCGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>

FYI

http://www.oecd.org/document/5/0,2340,en_2649_34223_36169989_1_1_1_1,00.html



*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland 
President, Computer Professionals for 
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake 
*******************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060224/de643068/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be  Fri Feb 24 04:47:32 2006
From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:47:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] governance Digest, Vol 27, Issue 47
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1140724805.13520.governance@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <mailman.5.1140724805.13520.governance@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <a06230900c024869a482a@[138.48.32.129]>

More simple: see http://www.iana.org

>Send governance mailing list submissions to
>	governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	governance-owner at lists.cpsr.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of governance digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. NTIA "Request for Information" on the IANA Functions
>       (Danny Younger)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:31:32 -0800 (PST)
>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
>Subject: [governance] NTIA "Request for Information" on the IANA
>	Functions
>To: ga at gnso.icann.org
>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Message-ID: <20060223133132.16977.qmail at web53515.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>General Information
>
>
>Document Type:  Sources Sought Notice
>Solicitation Number: Reference-Number-DOCNTIARFI0001
>Posted Date: Feb 21, 2006
>Original Response Date: Mar 07, 2006
>Current Response Date: Mar 07, 2006
>Original Archive Date: Mar 22, 2006
>Current Archive Date: Mar 22, 2006
>Classification Code: D -- Information technology
>services, including telecommunications services
>Naics Code: 541519 -- Other Computer Related Services
>
>Contracting Office Address
>Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary,
>Commerce Acquisition Solutions, Commerce Information
>Technology Solutions, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
>Room 6514, Washington, DC, 20230
>
>
>Description
>        THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY  
>  ?       Solicitations are not available at this time.
>     Requests for a solicitation will not receive a
>response.     This notice does not constitute a
>commitment by the United States Government.
>
>        The Department of Commerce, National
>Telecommunications and Information Administration
>(DOC/NTIA) is exploring options for Contractor
>performance of three, interdependent technical
>Internet coordinating functions.     In support of the
>operation of the Internet domain name and addressing
>system, a Contractor would furnish the necessary
>personnel, material, equipment, services, and
>facilities to perform the following services.   
>First, the Contractor would coordinate the assignment
>of technical protocol parameters.     This function
>would involve the review and assignment of unique
>values to numerous parameters (e.g., operation codes,
>port numbers, object identifiers, protocol numbers)
>used in various Internet protocols.    
>
>This function would also include dissemination of
>listings of assigned parameters through various means
>(including on-line publication) and the review of
>technical documents for consistency with assigned
>values.     Second, the Contractor would perform
>administrative functions associated with root
>management.     This function would primarily involve
>facilitation and coordination of the root zone of the
>Internet domain name and addressing system.     It
>would include receiving requests for and making
>routine updates of the country code top level domain
>contact and nameserver information. Third, the
>Contractor would allocate IPv4 and IPv6 delegations of
>IP address space.    
>
>This function would include delegation of IP address
>blocks to regional registries for routine allocation,
>typically through downstream providers, to Internet
>end-users within the regions served by those
>registries.     It would also include reservation and
>direct allocation of space for special purposes, such
>as multicast addressing, addresses for private
>networks, and globally specified applications.
>
>The DOC/NTIA is seeking the following information:
>
>1.       Potential Respondents shall describe how they
>would propose to successfully perform each of the
>three services, assuming that all services provided by
>Respondent would be accomplished in accordance with
>all applicable U.S. laws, regulations, policies, and
>procedures.
>
>2.       Potential Respondents shall describe both
>their existing relationships with the following
>entities and the extent to which such relationships
>would enable Respondents to successfully perform each
>of the three services:
>       
>        a. the Internet engineering community,
>
>        b. Internet standards development
>organizations,
>
>        c. Regional Internet Registries,
>
>        d. country code top level domain operators,
>
>        e. generic and sponsored top level domain
>operators, and
>
>        f. national governments or public authorities
>associated with specific country code top level
>domains.
>
>3.       Currently, the services are performed under
>contract at no cost to the United States Government. 
>   Potential Respondents shall describe proposed
>financial plans, including, if appropriate, the manner
>in which charges levied for services rendered would be
>derived.     Charges cannot be based on cost plus a
>percentage of cost.
>
>Respondents shall not be obligated to provide the
>services described herein and it is understood by the
>United States Government that the cost estimates
>provided as a result of this request are ?best?
>estimates only.
>
>All information submitted in response to this
>announcement is voluntary; the United States
>Government will not pay for information requested nor
>will it compensate any respondent for any cost
>incurred in developing information provided to the
>United States Government.     The response date for
>this market research is March 7, 2006.     No collect
>calls will be accepted.    
>
>All responses to this RFI may be submitted via e-mail
>to Carol Silverman, Contracting Officer, at
>csilverman at doc.gov, courtesy copy to Brendon Johnson,
>Contracting Officer, at bjohnson at doc.gov and with a
>hard copy to the U. S. Department of Commerce, Office
>of Acquisition Management and Financial Assistance,
>Commerce Acquisition Solutions Division, 1401
>Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 6521, Washington, D.C.
>     20230.
>
>Point of Contact
>Carol Silverman, Contracting Officer, Phone
>202-482-5543 (Room 6521), Fax 202-482-4988, Email
>csilverman at doc.gov - Brendon Johnson, Contracting
>Officer, Phone 202-482-7401, Fax 202-482-1711, Email
>bjohnson at doc.gov
>
>http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/OS/OAM/Reference%2DNumber%2DDOCNTIARFI0001/SynopsisR.html
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>End of governance Digest, Vol 27, Issue 47
>******************************************


-- 

************************************************
  Prof. Jacques BERLEUR
  Facultes Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix
  Rue Grandgagnage, 21         Phone:  +32 81 72-4976
		           Mobile: +32 (0)475 548372
  5000 NAMUR                      Fax:    +32 81 72 4967
  BELGIUM                             Email:  jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be
  URL: http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl/
************************************************
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Fri Feb 24 13:08:55 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:08:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] "icann at the crossroads"
Message-ID: <43FF4BB7.6090003@wz-berlin.de>

Hello,

if you want to read an interesting scenario, have a look at Bret 
Fausett's blog: http://blog.lextext.com/

What do people think? It makes sense to me.
jeanette
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Feb 24 14:59:05 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:59:05 -0500
Subject: [governance] "icann at the crossroads"
Message-ID: <s3ff3b53.049@gwia201.syr.edu>

It's a brilliant description of a plausible scenario. Everyone here should read it because it places the Forum and WSIS, ICANN and the US Government and its governmental critics/partners into a unified perspective. It may not be the way things work out or are working out, but it very well could be.

>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 2/24/2006 1:08:55 PM >>>
Hello,

if you want to read an interesting scenario, have a look at Bret 
Fausett's blog: http://blog.lextext.com/ 

What do people think? It makes sense to me.
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


From christine at apdip.net  Mon Feb 27 20:18:29 2006
From: christine at apdip.net (Christine)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:18:29 +0700
Subject: [governance] UNDP-APDIP Releases Publication on Internet Governance
Message-ID: <DPEX01aK2yR0F3praZf000005d0@dpex01.undp.or.th>

==========================================================================
Internet Governance: Asia-Pacific Perspectives

Edited by Danny Butt
Foreword by Nitin Desai

UNDP-APDIP, Elsevier, 2005, 155 pages
ISBN-13: 978-81-312-0110-7
ISBN-10: 81-312-0110-4

http://www.apdip.net/news/igovperspectives
==========================================================================
 
The Internet raises significant challenges for public policy and sustainable
human development, both internationally and for individual nations. While
the Asia-Pacific region contains the highest share of global Internet users,
it is under-represented in the forums that develop Internet-related
policies.

This book, with a foreword by Nitin Desai, presents the work of the Open
Regional Dialogue on Internet Governance, a year-long initiative by UNDP
Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme that has collected
perspectives from regional experts and end users.

It summarizes the key debates in Internet Governance from those involved in
international policy-making. It also provides detailed analysis of critical
issues such as spam, wireless technologies, security, multilingualism, and
cultural diversity in the Asia-Pacific.

The book contributes regional perspectives to important global processes,
and will assist anyone involved in planning Internet-related development
policies or projects.

*** Inside the Book ***

Introduction: The Open Regional Dialogue on Internet Governance
Danny Butt

PART I: PERSPECTIVES ON GOVERNANCE

Chapter 1: The Legacy of the Working Group on Internet Governance
Peng Hwa Ang

Chapter 2: Strengthening the Voice and Participation of Developing Countries
in Internet Policy-making
Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi

PART II: INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES

Chapter 3: Internet Governance in the Asia-Pacific Region
UNDP-APDIP

Chapter 4: Internet Governance and Socio-cultural Inclusion
Danny Butt and Norbert Klein

Chapter 5: Governing Internet Use: Spam, Cybercrime and e-Commerce
Suresh Ramasubramanian, Salman Ansari and Fuatai Purcell

Chapter 6: Development and the Regulation of Access Technologies: Wireless
and VoIP
Fuatai Purcell, Samudra Haque and Onno Purbo

PART III: INTERNET GOVERNANCE - COUNTRY REPORTS FROM THE REGION

Chapter 7: Country Reports: China, Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Thailand


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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Feb 28 10:28:35 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:28:35 -0500
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains]
Message-ID: <44046C23.904@lists.privaterra.org>

Thought this might be of interest .....

---

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Geist <mgeist at pobox.com>
Date: February 28, 2006 9:24:09 AM EST
To: dave at farber.net
Subject: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains

Dave,

China is preparing to launch what appears to be an alternate root.
Starting tomorrow, they will establish four country-code domains.  In
addition to the current dot-cn, they will offer Chinese character
versions of dot-China, dot-net, and dot-com. As one article puts it,
this "means Internet users don't have to surf the Web via the servers
under the management of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) of the United States."

Coverage from China is at
http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html

I've got some quick commentary at
<http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1130/Itemid,85/nsub,/>

which includes:

"The alternate root has always lurked in the background as a possibility
that would force everyone to rethink their positions since it would
enable a single country (or group of countries) to effectively pack up
their bags and start a new game.  The U.S. control would accordingly
prove illusory since a new domain name system situated elsewhere would
be subject to its own rules.  While the two could theoretically co-exist
by having ISPs simply recognize both roots, the system could "break" if
both roots contained identical extensions.  In other words, one root can
have dot-com and other other can have dot-corp, but they can't both have
dot-com.

It is with that background in mind that people need to think about a
press release issued yesterday in China announcing a revamping of its
Internet domain name system.  Starting tomorrow, China's Ministry of
Information Industry plans to begin offering four country-code domains.
 In addition to the dot-cn country code domain, three new Chinese
character domains are on the way: dot-China, dot-net, and dot-com.  As
the People's Daily Online notes this "means Internet users don't have to
surf the Web via the servers under the management of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of the United States."

In other words, the Chinese Internet becomes a reality tomorrow. With
it, the rules of the game may change as 110 million Internet users will
suddenly have access to a competing dot-com (albeit in a different
character set) and will no longer rely exclusively on ICANN for the
resolution of Internet domain name queries.  This change was probably
inevitable regardless of the status of ICANN, however, the U.S. position
can't possibly have helped matters.  Indeed, some might note that while
Congress has been criticizing U.S. companies for cooperating with
Chinese law enforcement and thereby harming Internet freedoms, those
same Congressional leaders may have done the same by refusing to even
consider surrendering some control over the Internet root to the
international community and thereby opening the door to an alternate
root that could prove even worse from a freedom perspective.

This week's announcement certainly doesn't mark the end of a global
interoperable Internet.  It does move one step further toward that path
since in Internet governance terms, the credible threat is now real."

MG
--**********************************************************************
Professor Michael A. Geist
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law
University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law
57 Louis Pasteur St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319     Fax: 613-562-5124
mgeist at pobox.com              http://www.michaelgeist.ca


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


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Feb 28 10:57:00 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:57:00 -0500
Subject: [governance] [Mmwg] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country
	Code	Domains]
Message-ID: <s4042c8f.027@gwia201.syr.edu>

>China is preparing to launch what appears to be an alternate root.
>Starting tomorrow, they will establish four country-code domains. 

Not quite accurate. The .cn country code has of course been in existence for many years. The three Chinese character versions (Zhong Guo - China; Gong Si - Company; and NET) have also been in existence for some time. Apparently all that has happened is that they have made it official; prior to this they claimed it was an experiment.

>As one article puts it,
>this "means Internet users don't have to surf the Web via the servers
>under the management of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
>and Numbers (ICANN) of the United States."

That's obviously incorrect. If you are in China and you want to connect to www.internetgovernance.org, you will be using zone files that are reliant on the ICANN root. 




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


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Tue Feb 28 10:59:09 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:59:09 -0500
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code
	Domains]
Message-ID: <a0623090cc02a23b1d93d@[192.168.0.104]>

So the facts are clear:  China (and not just China ...) has had 
so-called alternate multilingual roots for some time - to the point 
where _currently_ there are 70 million native Chinese character 
users, and growing.  This is not something that is just happening. 
It has been underway for quite awhile.  The Western press 
environment, likely influenced by ICANN and US Gov positions, has 
failed to bring it to light (for us) - that does not change the 
reality.

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


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Feb 28 11:01:41 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:01:41 -0500
Subject: [governance] [Mmwg] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country
	Code	Domains]
Message-ID: <s4042db3.074@gwia201.syr.edu>

Just checked. The quote is from the English version of Peoples Daily online. Based on context, one could edit the statement in the following way: 

>As one article puts it,
>this "means [Chinese-speaking] Internet users don't have to surf the Web via the servers
>under the management of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
>and Numbers (ICANN) of the United States" [if they don't want to access anything registered under .com, .net, .org, .info, or any one of the other 200 or so ccTLDs."] 




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


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Feb 28 11:10:38 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:10:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] OECD Workshop: "The Future of the Internet"
In-Reply-To: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOIEKCGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <MABBIHAAPBEEGMLBDEGOIEKCGFAA.drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <440475FE.2050605@lists.privaterra.org>

William Drake wrote:
> FYI
>  
> http://www.oecd.org/document/5/0,2340,en_2649_34223_36169989_1_1_1_1,00.html
>  

As not everyone can attend this or that meeting, it would be great if
details of the event could be shared with the list - be it minutes,
comments and/or proposed initiatives.

regards

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Feb 28 11:25:27 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:25:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country
	Code	Domains]
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735AA6B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

With regard to the China Root: 
 
This is not new news. New is that it is now officially announced and out into practical operation. But what you (or the US) can do? In its para 3 of the DNS Statement from June 2005 it signalled that it will respect the national sovereignty over the domain name space of a country. This is reflected in the Internet Governance part of the Tunis Agenda. Read para 63: "Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country's country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms". For China, to have its own root with chinese TLDs is the execution of the sovereignty over their domain name space. They certainly will not start a root with .com zone files in ASCII code. But what now VeriSign/IANA/DOC is doing with iDN TLD root zone files? Will they create their own version of .com in chinese characters and than put it into the Hidden Server? 
 
US Principle 3 was the price, the US government offered to get its principle 1 through: Continuation of its own oversight role with regard to ICANN and the DNS. And China accepted this in July 2006. It was not accepted (or understood) by the EU. That is why you saw the struggle in September and the letter from Madame Rice to Mr. Strw. Now you have two unilateral controlled root server systems, one based on ASCII, the other one on Chinese characters. And what will happen with Arab, Cyrillic and Persian?
 
Not a big deal, if you have password to leave the Chinese Internet and to go to the ASCII Internet. And Only a small group of people living in the ASCII world will knock at the door of the Chinese Internet. Big news, but no revolution. We are moving, as Mr. Hegel has said, confirmed later by Mr. Marx, nearly 200 years ago, from simple to complex structures. The remaining question is, is there a need to coordinate the different language based roots? ITU is waiting for new business ...((((.
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 
  

________________________________

Lähettäjä: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org puolesta: David Allen
Lähetetty: ti 28.2.2006 16:59
Vastaanottaja: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Aihe: Re: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains]



So the facts are clear:  China (and not just China ...) has had
so-called alternate multilingual roots for some time - to the point
where _currently_ there are 70 million native Chinese character
users, and growing.  This is not something that is just happening.
It has been underway for quite awhile.  The Western press
environment, likely influenced by ICANN and US Gov positions, has
failed to bring it to light (for us) - that does not change the
reality.

David
_______________________________________________
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


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Tue Feb 28 11:39:42 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:39:42 -0500
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code
	Domains]
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735AA6B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735AA6B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <a0623090fc02a2cbdf861@[192.168.0.104]>

At 5:25 PM +0100 2/28/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>The remaining question is, is there a need to 
>coordinate the different language based roots?

That I think is what _we_ - WSIS, IGF et al. - are supposed to be all about ...

David

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


From baptista at cynikal.net  Tue Feb 28 16:31:52 2006
From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:31:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code
	Domains]
In-Reply-To: <44046C23.904@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <44046C23.904@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <4404C148.7030001@cynikal.net>

Twits in the know - or NOT.  The chinese root was launched years ago.  
Went public this past year - which see Public-Root press release:

http://www.inaic.com/index.php?p=chinese-tlds

People - please get a clue.  The chinese have been at it for a long 
time.  And how many of you also know the chinese root causes major 
traffic to the USG root system.  Roots that remain static and don't see 
what other roots see are vulnerable to error.

regards
joe baptista

Robert Guerra wrote:

>Thought this might be of interest .....
>
>---
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>From: Michael Geist <mgeist at pobox.com>
>Date: February 28, 2006 9:24:09 AM EST
>To: dave at farber.net
>Subject: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains
>
>Dave,
>
>China is preparing to launch what appears to be an alternate root.
>Starting tomorrow, they will establish four country-code domains.  In
>addition to the current dot-cn, they will offer Chinese character
>versions of dot-China, dot-net, and dot-com. As one article puts it,
>this "means Internet users don't have to surf the Web via the servers
>under the management of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>Numbers (ICANN) of the United States."
>
>Coverage from China is at
>http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
>
>I've got some quick commentary at
><http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1130/Itemid,85/nsub,/>
>
>which includes:
>
>"The alternate root has always lurked in the background as a possibility
>that would force everyone to rethink their positions since it would
>enable a single country (or group of countries) to effectively pack up
>their bags and start a new game.  The U.S. control would accordingly
>prove illusory since a new domain name system situated elsewhere would
>be subject to its own rules.  While the two could theoretically co-exist
>by having ISPs simply recognize both roots, the system could "break" if
>both roots contained identical extensions.  In other words, one root can
>have dot-com and other other can have dot-corp, but they can't both have
>dot-com.
>
>It is with that background in mind that people need to think about a
>press release issued yesterday in China announcing a revamping of its
>Internet domain name system.  Starting tomorrow, China's Ministry of
>Information Industry plans to begin offering four country-code domains.
> In addition to the dot-cn country code domain, three new Chinese
>character domains are on the way: dot-China, dot-net, and dot-com.  As
>the People's Daily Online notes this "means Internet users don't have to
>surf the Web via the servers under the management of the Internet
>Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of the United States."
>
>In other words, the Chinese Internet becomes a reality tomorrow. With
>it, the rules of the game may change as 110 million Internet users will
>suddenly have access to a competing dot-com (albeit in a different
>character set) and will no longer rely exclusively on ICANN for the
>resolution of Internet domain name queries.  This change was probably
>inevitable regardless of the status of ICANN, however, the U.S. position
>can't possibly have helped matters.  Indeed, some might note that while
>Congress has been criticizing U.S. companies for cooperating with
>Chinese law enforcement and thereby harming Internet freedoms, those
>same Congressional leaders may have done the same by refusing to even
>consider surrendering some control over the Internet root to the
>international community and thereby opening the door to an alternate
>root that could prove even worse from a freedom perspective.
>
>This week's announcement certainly doesn't mark the end of a global
>interoperable Internet.  It does move one step further toward that path
>since in Internet governance terms, the credible threat is now real."
>
>MG
>--**********************************************************************
>Professor Michael A. Geist
>Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law
>University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law
>57 Louis Pasteur St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
>Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319     Fax: 613-562-5124
>mgeist at pobox.com              http://www.michaelgeist.ca
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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


From baptista at cynikal.net  Tue Feb 28 19:18:39 2006
From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:18:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country
	Code	Domains]
In-Reply-To: <a0623090cc02a23b1d93d@[192.168.0.104]>
References: <a0623090cc02a23b1d93d@[192.168.0.104]>
Message-ID: <4404E85F.3090904@cynikal.net>

David Allen wrote:

>So the facts are clear:  China (and not just China ...) has had 
>so-called alternate multilingual roots for some time - to the point 
>  
>
Thats about right - and lets not forget the turkish experiment with the 
public-root that included multilingual tlds.  Successful experiment.

http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/turkey/tld-index.html

>where _currently_ there are 70 million native Chinese character 
>users, and growing.  This is not something that is just happening. 
>It has been underway for quite awhile.  The Western press 
>environment, likely influenced by ICANN and US Gov positions, has 
>failed to bring it to light (for us) - that does not change the 
>reality.
>  
>

Best kept secret.  It could be a technical nightmare in the making.  The 
chinse root is really an island root system.  They don't like sharing 
their data.  Has anyone seen an axfr file from the china root yet?  The 
root splits we are witnessing will challenge people to take up the model 
which we the tecicians designed for the public-root system.  If you want 
to commuicate with each other your going to have to acknowledge non of 
you has control of the root systems - including the governments.

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


From baptista at cynikal.net  Tue Feb 28 19:24:35 2006
From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:24:35 -0500
Subject: [governance] [Mmwg] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate
 Country	Code Domains]
In-Reply-To: <s4042db3.074@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s4042db3.074@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4404E9C3.1000201@cynikal.net>

Milton Mueller wrote:

>Just checked. The quote is from the English version of Peoples Daily online. Based on context, one could edit the statement in the following way: 
>
>  
>
>>As one article puts it,
>>this "means [Chinese-speaking] Internet users don't have to surf the Web via the servers
>>under the management of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
>>and Numbers (ICANN) of the United States" [if they don't want to access anything registered under .com, .net, .org, .info, or any one of the other 200 or so ccTLDs."] 
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

Surfers in china "Users" have not used the USG root system (ICANN) for 
some years now.  User computers were updated via an extensive network of 
leading ISPs.

This is such old news - incredible the ignorance here on what has been 
happening out in the wild.  This is why I keep reminding the 
organizations here how irrelevant they trully are to the dynamics of DNS.

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


From baptista at cynikal.net  Tue Feb 28 19:39:43 2006
From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:39:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country	Code
 Domains]
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735AA6B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735AA6B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4404ED4F.20600@cynikal.net>

Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

>upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms". For China, to have its own root with chinese TLDs is the execution of the sovereignty over their domain name space. 
>
Not really.  They may see it that way - but in fact it will bring to the 
forefront issues affecting resolution and traffic congestion.

>They certainly will not start a root with .com zone files in ASCII code. But what now VeriSign/IANA/DOC is doing with iDN TLD root zone files? Will they create their own version of .com in chinese characters and than put it into the Hidden Server? 
>  
>
I think your getting ASCII and "chinese characters" confused.  The DNS 
is ASCII.  The chinese characters use an encoding method that utilizes 
an ASCII string.  Each computer in china has been upgraded to support 
the chinese character script - which is translated by the browser into a 
representative ASCII string.

> 
>US Principle 3 was the price, the US government offered to get its principle 1 through: Continuation of its own oversight role with regard to ICANN and the DNS. And China accepted this in July 2006. It was not accepted (or understood) by the EU. That is why you saw the struggle in September and the letter from Madame Rice to Mr. Strw. Now you have two unilateral controlled root server systems, one based on ASCII, the other one on Chinese characters. And what will happen with Arab, Cyrillic and Persian?
>  
>
Just create arab, cyrillic and persian TLDs - I don't see a problem.  
Also thereare more then two root server systems.  With the advent of the 
public-root several have been established, including a turkish root 
system.  The trick to the internet is tha all this activity is a test - 
do people want one internet - or islands of many.  Root are the means by 
which we create networks through domain space.  Will we have system 
offering a brand new internet - tired of dot.com - join dot.com2?

It should not surprise people in the know that terrors organization 
operate their own private dns systems with internal naming conventions.  
Some (very few) military also use their own root systems.  And lets not 
forget the GSM root recently introduced this past year.  Thats also a 
large footprint.

> 
>Not a big deal, if you have password to leave the Chinese Internet and to go to the ASCII Internet. And Only a small group of people living in the ASCII world will knock at the door of the Chinese Internet. Big news, but no revolution. We are moving, as Mr. Hegel has said, confirmed later by Mr. Marx, nearly 200 years ago, from simple to complex structures. The remaining question is, is there a need to coordinate the different language based roots? ITU is waiting for new business ...((((.
>  
>
You really have no idea whats happening.  The creation of the chinese 
root will cause serious problems with the united states root system.  
Namely increased traffic which is becoming a serious conern these days.

Here is the senario - just multiply it upwards by an astronomical 
amount.  If small alternative root systems can cause damage to the USG 
root - what will something like the china root.  Moral of story - people 
who are blind bang head into wall many times.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/

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