[governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

[Jeremy Shtern]

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