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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Parminder,

I have mentioned weeks ago that the caucus should think about a 
statement for the Geneva consultation. I got no response, and nobody 
drafted anything. This is why I decided yesterday to put together a list 
of principles regarding the forum; principles I assume the caucus finds 
relevant.

Karen suggested that I include parts of Bill's Malta presentation. She 
attached that presentation so that everybody on this list could read it.
Nobody objected, so Jeremy and I added parts of Bill's presentation. As 
far as I am concerned, we can drop the second part or replace it by new 
language.

The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective 
process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged 
elements of recent contributions.

Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply not 
true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to 
give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.

I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this 
list in more polite and respectful way.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance