[governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of the Internet Governance Forum

[Seiiti Arata]

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