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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

> 
> I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here
> saying the IGF should not discuss policy issues. 

Of course not.

On the second, per
> my reply to Michael,  affordability and access have not been treated
> as IG issues and I don't think we could get consensus amongst
> ourselves on the matter, which is NOT to say that nobody cares about
> these issues, it's just a question of in which context are they best
> addressed.  Again, we could certainly fudge the issue by saying we
> think these are key concerns with which IG policies should be
> consistent, but that's different. 

I don't see why we would not want issues of access to be included. 
Aren't these cross cutting issues too?

  And of course, you, APC, and
> others who feel that these manifestly are IG issues can submit
> statements to that effect.  I'm not sure what you mean by the third,
> but am guessing you refer to the enhanced cooperation on oversight
> issues.  I guarantee that the US-UK-Canada-Australia and private
> sector/ISOC will oppose that being in the forum, and as such it
> probably won't happen, but personally I would be happy to have the
> caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this is
> discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.

I would like us to address this point if we can get consensus on it. I 
was considering to add a sentence to the para on agenda setting or 
thematic autonomy to mention the enhanced cooperation. I suspected 
though that we wouldn't have consensus on this issue. This is why I 
dropped it.

jeanette
> 
> We need some very quick dialogue on this point and guidance for
> today's drafting.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>> -----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 5:55 PM To: Parminder 
>> Cc: 'Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] intervention
>> draft - why are the more progressive elements of IGF functions
>> ommitted
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 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