[governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

[Parminder]

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