[governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive elements of IGF functions ommitted

Wed Feb 15 08:04:14 EST 2006

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