[governance] BD IGF intervention notes fyi

[William Drake]

Three points

1.  Substantive Focus.

Since early in Phase I, the WSIS Principles have been routinely repeated and
endorsed---international management of the Internet should be multilateral,
transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the
private sector, civil society and international organizations [i.e.
multistakeholder].

The Tunis Agenda gives the IGF an unambiguous mandate to,  “Promote and assess,
on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance
processes” within existing Internet governance mechanisms.

Horizontal assessment of this kind essential to promoting more effective,
inclusive, broadly supported IG; Forum should play a catalytic role by taking
holistic view of the range of governance mechanisms, foster understanding and
participation, raising awareness about possible enhancements/improvements

This implies ongoing monitoring and assessment of developments in those
mechanisms, and close working relations with them.  The Agenda is equally clear
on these points when it says the IGF is to:

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;
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


Presumably, the governments that carefully and laboriously negotiated and then
approved this language meant what they said.  If so, then there should be no
controversy about establishing a process under the IGF to carry out this
mandate.  Nevertheless, interventions made so far on substantive issues to be
addressed have not mentioned carrying this forward; instead, vertically
segmented issues.

So Question: do we take seriously the Tunis Agenda mandate, or set it aside?


2.  Nature of the Forum

IGF has been referred to as an “event” or “a meeting,” sounds like series of
one-off sessions on different topics, sort of like ITU WTPFs, with some online
dialogue in between.  We have also heard it said there should not be subsidiary
bodies.

Many of us in CS have generally understood it differently, more as an ongoing
process that would promote collective dialogue, learning and mutual
understanding.  IGF as an umbrella under which various initiatives could be
formed bottom up basis by concerned stakeholders.  Working Groups, e.g. a WG on
Application of the WSIS Principles.  Other initiatives include the IG Research
Network (Wolfgang will explain.)

WGs etc particularly important if secretariat itself does not have independent
research capacity.


3.  Convening and Coordinating

In interventions and documents in Tunis and prior, IGC has supported the view
that the IGF should convened under authority of UN SG, coordinated by UN, the
most inclusive and neutral forum.





*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
*******************************************************


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