[governance] IG Public policy issues - approx 7 days left to deadline.. [March 31/06]

[Adam Peake]

Comments below:


At 7:54 AM +0100 3/24/06, William Drake wrote:
>Hi Ian,
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>>  [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Ian Peter
>>  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:41 PM
>
>>  I think the first comment may have been Adam Peake's which suggested that
>>  the three themes concept is a limitation which should not be imposed and
>>  appears to differ from the WGIG mandate. I think first thing we need to do
>>  is state that more themes than three should be discussed if the
>>  event is to
>>  be effective.
>>
>>  Also attached a response I sent to IGF - it mentions about 20
>>  policy themes
>
>I think the lack of clarity on the Athens format and on the ongoing
>multilevel process vs. one-off annual meetings issue is causing some
>problems here.  On the one hand, since we started talking about a forum or
>forum function in early 2004, CS people have consistently argued for a broad
>and unrestricted agenda with nothing that falls under the IG rubric being
>taken off the table simply because this or that set of powerful actors deem
>it to be "controversial" and don't want to talk about it in an open
>multistakeholder setting.  We took the same line at the February IGF
>consultation and since, and should as you and Adam suggest continue to
>insist on it as a matter of principle.



Bill, yes, I think it's a matter of principle.

Email I sent to the MMWG list last month explains a little more fully 
(not much!) below.


At 2:26 AM +0900 3/2/06, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote:
>
>Next:  we should begin by saying we *do not* accept the idea that 
>the forum should consider just three issues (this year... I think at 
>one point Mr. Desai said there would be chance for another three 
>next year -- or something similar to that. Terrible.)
>
>Very clear that this idea of three issues is not in keeping with the 
>mandate of the IGF: para 72 absolutely does not limit the number of 
>issues IGF should consider, on contrary it calls on the forum to 
>consider a broad range of issues and undertake a wide range of 
>tasks/functions < 
><http://www.intgovforum.org/about.htm>http://www.intgovforum.org/about.htm>.
>
>Can understand why Mr. Desai would like to limit the number (it is 
>convenient from a practical/organizational point of view) but any 
>such limitation is not what governments asked for, and (with the 
>greatest of respect :-) it's not Mr. Desai's job to redefine the 
>Forum's mandate.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>


So I'm not keen on us prioritizing issues. At least not without a 
statement to say that IGF should be open to potential discussion of 
all themes.

Practically of course we have to suggest something. And as you say if 
proposing multiple themes then a proposal of how to handle those 
themes in discussion might be good. The format used for the UN ICT 
Task Force's meeting on Internet Governance (march of 2004?) is a 
possible model: plenary discussion on broadest of issues, break out 
into discussion groups on thematic issues (attendees self select 
which to join), reporting of breakouts to plenary (breakouts that 
have support/life to them, continue as working groups.)  I don't mean 
to suggest anything restrictive here, just thoughts... But can see 
such a format as the beginning of a process of discussion/involvement.

I've not followed some discussion well recently: any agreement on how 
we will present themes, a long list of suggestions, or theme + 
description of why considered important?

Adam





>On the other hand, the industrialized country governments and private sector
>presently prefer to restrict the forum to being just an annual meeting, the
>secretariat can hardly ignore their views, and aside from oral interventions
>in Geneva and the brief MMWG input, we have not really articulated what an
>ongoing, multilevel process might look like.  Hence, at present the planning
>is proceeding on the assumption that we are primarily talking about a four
>day meeting in Athens.  As the Brazilian delegate pointed out at the
>consultation, a chunk of time at the front and back ends of that period
>could be spent on the usual formalities (congratulations to the host, the
>chairman, etc) and organizational matters, so the actual amount of plenary
>time could be more like three days. In this context, it's not surprising
>that the secretariat would want to limit the focus to just three issues in
>the hope of having some focus and prospect of "success" that will make
>funders et al. want to stay engaged.  In fact, with 600 or more people in
>the room and many wanting to speak, even this may be too ambitious.  Imagine
>a one-day plenary on, say, spam, then another on multilingualism, etc---how
>much progress could these dialogues really make, what recommendations could
>we realistically expect beyond Tunis-style generalities like more
>international cooperation is desirable?  As long as we are limited to this
>format, calling for the treatment of more than three issues will be
>interpreted as us being unrealistic and impractical.
>
>So process and substance demands are intrinsically linked.  If we're going
>to send them multiple topical suggestions and say these are all important to
>us, I think we should also a) call for at least one and maybe two days in
>Athens being devoted to parallel workshops, any outputs of which could then
>be brought into the plenary sessions; and b) an agreement that, per MMWG,
>topical working groups can be formed bottom-up, formally linked to the IGF,
>work virtually, and present any outputs and recommendations at Rio.  Where
>there's consensus, the Athens workshops could serve as the boot-up moment
>for the creation of such groups.
>
>This would accommodate not only multiple topical threads, but work on issues
>that require analysis and gestation.  For example, I've been arguing for a
>focus on application of the WSIS principles to existing governance
>mechanisms, and will write up a proposal for the pile before March 31, but I
>don't think one could expect a coherent and useful plenary discussion on
>this in Athens.  First there has to be an analysis of the extent to which
>the various public and private governance mechanisms are or are not
>transparent, multistakeholder, etc. so there's something tangible to talk
>off of.  I think some of the other issues that have been proposed on the
>list, and in your letter to Markus, may be similar in this respect.
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>  which would impose significant bandwidth limitations on what can be
>covered,
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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