[governance] draft for a intervention => caucus meetings

[William Drake]

Hi,

I have asked Renate to see if CONGO can procure a space for the caucus to meet during the consultation.  She doesn't have hard confirmation yet, but thinks we should be able to use the NGO Lounge near the cafeteria in building E during the Thursday-Friday lunch breaks.  Worst case scenario, we can grab a corner of the cafeteria or coffee lounge or squat in an empty meeting room.  My suggestion would be that we have a focused discussion on site to touch up and finalize a caucus statement, as there are apparently some differences of view, or at least emphasis, that need to be reconciled, and it's unlikely we're going to pull this off in the next couple of hours with people traveling etc.  I don't see how we could do this in a noisy crowded bar tonight, especially with seemingly only a handful of folks having arrived by then.  It's not absolutely imperative that the text be posted prior to the opening of the consultation anyway, whenever it's done we can have the secretariat post it and mention this in a floor intervention.

Best,

Bill



-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Parminder
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:07 PM
To: 'Bertrand de La Chapelle'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva


  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

  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/20060215/07956cfd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance