[governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

Thu Feb 16 05:54:27 EST 2006

Hi Michael and Bill,

As I proposed in an earlier email 'access and affordability' of internet is
not only an infrastructural issues - but has many many more implications -
many of them still not very clear at this stage of evolution of Internet.
This is the reason to keep these issues in IGF, though infrastructural
issues can also have some implication here - like in interconnection costs. 

As for Michael's either-or formulation - whether access should be discussed
in IGF or at global alliance kind of ICTD forums - the idea is not to shift
all ICTD discussion of 'access and affordability' to IGF. Discretion will of
course prevail - and IGF would need to take up only those issues of access
and affordability that are clearly connected to other IG issues. Some
overlap though may happen, and we can live with it. 

Regards

Parminder 

________________________________________________
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 William Drake
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:20 PM
To: Gurstein, Michael; Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva

Hi,

Karen and I have gone around on this a bit since WGIG.  While it is of
course an issue of paramount importance, I don't see access as an IG issue,
there are no applicable international shared rule systems, it's a function
of heterogeneous and uncoordinated national policies and corporate
decisions.  Accordingly, it hasn't really been treated as such in WGIG/WSIS.
Of course, one could say there should be international rules, but that's
different, and I would think there is an obligation to say just what such
rules might consist of.   I know Milton agrees with me and think some others
did when this came up previously. There also arguably would be some danger
of implying that international telecom rules, such as the ITU's treaty
instruments, that are supposed to encourage telephone access, apply to the
Internet.   Clearly it's an issue meriting further consideration and people
can reasonably disagree on it.  We can talk about this in our drafting
meeting today, but I don't think we'll reach a hard consensus on the point
in the time available.  Maybe there's some mention that could be worked out
to connect with and support APC's statement without declaring full stop that
the caucus all agrees this is an IG issue per se.

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Gurstein, Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:49 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
>
>
> As I expected, but a bit earlier than I assumed, mission creep
> for the IGF has already been initiated and by CS rather than by
> any of the other actors.
>
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Karen and Parminder that
> "access" (and thus "development") issues should be discussed at
> the IGF--if not there, where; and of course, it is difficult to
> distinguish issues of "access" and "capacity building" from
> "development" (and I guess that then means a not too big a lurch
> over into overall issues of ICT4D, yes?)...
>
> BUT, wasn't the division of responsibility to have been Internet
> Governance/Policy with the IGF and ICT4D with the Global Alliance
> (whose gestation has been even more lengthy and wrapped in
> shrouds of UN intrigue--an "extensive consultation",
> hmmm...--than the IGF...
>
> Again, maybe it would be best to have all the issues addressed in
> the IGF and leave the GA to moulder with the other "high level
> but participative UN blah blah's", but if that is the case, then
> the responsibilities that flow from that, and for everyone
> including (or especially) CS folks to figure out and make
> representations around all the issues of inclusion,
> "representivity", support mechanisms for participation, a
> possible role in direct policy development and even project
> implementation etc.etc. (which flows more or less directly from
> including the ICT4D "mandate") rears its head more or less immediately.
>
> That is, CS like everyone else can't have it both ways--having
> all the issues of importance (to the various components of CS) on
> the table in the IGF, without at the same time recognizing that
> some of those issues have much much broader constituencies and
> much more immediate physical impacts on folks on the ground than
> the rather more rarified (and dare I say "virtual") issues of
> things like spam and the allocations of responsibilities within
> the DNS, and that this being the case, maintaining the IGF as a
> rather exclusive talk shop for Internet (and travel funded)
> cognoscenti isn't going to (ahem) fly.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
> Sent: February 15, 2006 10:41 AM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann; Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
>
>
> hi
>
> i've looked over very quickly and can support
> everything here - we would have additional points
> to make, or would emphasize some points more than
> others, but can do so in a separate intervention.
>
> the two points i would add, or, think are missing
> - are the importance of a rights based approach
> to the forum (with specific reference to privacy
> and freedom of expression) and 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)
>
> anyway, if this is too difficult - i can raise in our intervention..
>
> APC will post it's survey response today, very
> late.. and i'll post a copy here..
>
> In some ways, we are still thinking, so the
> responses are not necessarily final final positions or perspectives ..
>
> karen
>
> At 22:48 14/02/2006, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >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;
> >
> >ï'§     Interface: with appropriate
> >inter-governmental organizations and other
> >institutions on matters under their purview;
> >
> >ï'§     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of
> >stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet
> >Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
> >
> >ï'§     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

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance