[governance] Updated draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
Jeremy Shtern
jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca
Wed Feb 15 10:37:54 EST 2006
Hello Everyone,
I have been compiling the comments and suggested changes to the draft
caucus intervention document that was forwarded yesterday.
I am attaching a word document of the original text, onto which I have
pasted all comments in bold and italics and suggestions for additions in
blue text and for deletions in red text. I hope it is clear.
I second Bill's suggestion that the caucus meeting should be the site of
the final revision and that on site participants should be charged with
negotiating between the virtual suggestions and their own positions.
Thus far comments have been received by: Wolfgang, Danny, Karen,
Bertrand, Parminder and Vittorio. Most have expressed the support for
the statement pending some revisions, however it has also been suggested
by others that Part II of the document is problematic and even
unsupportable (see details in text).
If possible, I will update this document again if more comments come in.
Regards,
Jeremy Shtern
See attached and below for text:
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.
[Parminder suggests: I 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.]
* 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 [Bertrand
suggests: delete institutional structures, add processes] of
Internet Governance.
[Parminder suggests: I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity
building point at number 2 and wanted to move it down.]
* 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 [Bertrand suggests: delete such as, add including]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 [Wolfgang suggest: add trans-disciplinary and
inter-institutional] 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.
[Parminder suggests: 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.]
[Bertrand suggests Alt paragraph to the above as follows:
Right of initiative/Agenda-setting: The Forum must be free to choose
the issues it addresses as it considers appropriate, in application of
its missions and mandate as defined, inter alia, by para 72 of the Tunis
Agenda.
Bertrands 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.]
* 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 [Bertrand suggests: add 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.
* 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.
* [Danny (in response to Wolfgang): Human Rights: The work of the
Forum should protect and promote human rights principles as contained in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular provisions for
privacy and freedom of expression.]
New Sections suggested for Part I:
[Wolfgang: as CS we should add one para. on the special interests of
individual users and probably also on minority groups.
- What about one para saying, that the work of the Forum has to be based
on the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, in mparticular Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy]
[Karen: - the importance of a rights based approach
to the forum (with specific reference to privacy
and freedom of expression)
- the importance of an overriding development orientation to the work
of the IGF (i don't see any reference to
developing country priorities in this text,
excepting that of capacity building and
participation - which are of course important,
but nothing that indicates issue focus/priority)]
[Vittorio: Consumer rights need to be added]
II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
[Parminder suggests: 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 dont 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
countrys governments nominee. ]
[Bertrand suggests: 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 autonom.]
[Parminder supports Bertrands proposed amendments]
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=
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 Wolfgang
Kleinwächter
Sent: February 15, 2006 2:09 AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann; Governance Caucus
Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for
Geneva
I can agree with the statement. I would probably add to "cross cutting"
als trans-disciplinary and inter-institutional.
Another point, as CS we should add one para. on the special interests of
individual users and probably also on minority groups. What about one
para saying, that the work of the Forum has to be based on the
fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in
mparticular Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy?
Wolfgang
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Tue 2/14/2006 11:48 PM
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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/d712d9ba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CS-intervention-Geneva-consultation-forum-j-j-version-comments.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 59904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060215/d712d9ba/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list