[governance] malta/Composition and Organisation of the InternetGovernance Forum

Jeanette Hofmann jeanette at wz-berlin.de
Tue Feb 14 07:16:39 EST 2006



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



More information about the Governance mailing list