[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Adam Peake]

We participate in IGF as equals.  It's a place for collaboration and 
discussion.

Why are you petitioning anyone?

Petitioning seems to miss the whole point of IGF. It's Groundhog Day 
and we're at a WSIS prepcom?

Instead ask questions, make suggestions. Write them down now, send 
them to the secretariat.  Ask MAG members to give them to moderators 
of sessions (I promise to do what I can... with minimal editorial. 
But do cut point 6 :-)  Blog the comments and hope they are picked up 
as part of remote participation/"blogsphere".  etc.

Adam

(<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/>)



At 2:41 PM +0200 10/24/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto:
>>Here is my attempt, based loosely on Parminder's draft but 
>>shortened and simplified and rephrased in the form of a petition. 
>>Comments,
>
>First of all, I don't like the "intimidating" style, with premises, 
>lists and capitalized words... I would do something less formal, for 
>example in the form of a letter. Something like: "We consider the 
>IGF as one... and express... We are committed to... . However, we 
>are concerned that..."
>
>As for the substance:
>
>>TO the Secretary-General of the United Nations
>>AND TO the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
>>
>>CONSIDERING the IGF as one of the most important outcomes of the 
>>WSIS process, which promises to be an innovation in the arena of 
>>global governance;
>>
>>EXPRESSING our strong appreciation for the value that the IGF 
>>brings to global policy arena and for the work of the Secretariat 
>>and the Advisory Group to date;
>>
>>AND COMMITTED to our to full cooperation with an IGF process that 
>>embodies multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and 
>>transparent principles;
>>
>>BUT CONCERNED that these principles not be left behind in the 
>>unavoidable haste of all parties to convene and successfully 
>>conclude the IGF's inaugural meeting in Athens;
>>
>>WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby call upon the Secretary-General of the 
>>United Nations to request the Secretariat of the Internet 
>>Governance Forum to fulfil its mandate to convene the IGF as a 
>>forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue in an open and 
>>inclusive process by:
>>
>>1. AFFIRMING that the IGF as not merely an open space in which free 
>>discussion can take place,
>
>For what we see until now, it is not even that. "Free discussion" 
>means that any interested person can have a chance to talk, which is 
>not what is going to happen in Athens - not by anyone's fault, but 
>for the formula that was chosen. Let me give it a try:
>
>"The first instance of the IGF has apparently been conceived on the 
>model of an international conference, with pre-arranged panelists 
>instructing the audience on pre-defined themes, and limited 
>opportunities for participants to express their views, or to raise 
>other issues. While we appreciate the effort, we would like to 
>ensure that any stakeholder has sufficient opportunities to express 
>views, raise issues of concern, gather interest in them, and get 
>them addressed at the IGF or forwarded to the appropriate venue. In 
>other words, we would like to stress the importance of replacing 
>top-down organizational models with bottom-up procedures, where a 
>sufficient number of participants can put issues on the agenda and 
>start working on them."
>
>(too long?)
>
>>but rather a deliberative body whose legitimacy to occupy this role 
>>stems from its special character as a network of equal stakeholders.
>
>Rather than "deliberative" (that usually implies some power and 
>scares anti-regulatory people), I would say something like "We see 
>the IGF as a body that can promote and confirm consensus on 
>non-binding policy recommendations, as per part (g) of its mandate, 
>given the legitimacy stemming from the Tunis agreements and from its 
>special character as a network of equal stakeholders."
>
>>2. FACILITATING the development of structures and processes within 
>>the IGF within which for such deliberation to take place, and thus 
>>enabling the IGF to fulfil its mandate given in paragraph 72 of the 
>>Tunis Agenda, including sub-paragraphs (c), (e), (g) and (k), all 
>>of which clearly bespeak an strong element of agency on the part of 
>>the IGF.
>>
>>3. DEVELOPING in an open and collaborative process a structure of 
>>Working Groups for the IGF around important issues and areas, which 
>>would work on an ongoing basis, through virtual as well as 
>>face-to-face means, and would report and be accountable to the IGF 
>>at large.
>>
>>4. INCREASING the transparency and inclusiveness of IGF processes, 
>>including the release of information about the manner of Advisory 
>>Group selections, their processes and outcomes, and opening these 
>>processes to receive the input of all stakeholders.
>
>I would rather state a revolutionary (in the UN environment) but 
>very important principle: that civil society representatives in the 
>AG and any other groups should be self-selected by civil society 
>itself, under transparent and accountable procedures. I would add 
>that the IGC has chartered itself to ensure such procedures for what 
>pertains to its own participation.
>
>I would also add that we are dissatisfied with the very limited 
>representation of civil society (excluding the technical & academic 
>community, which was eventually treated as a fourth group and is 
>actually much better represented than us) in the current AG, only 
>4-5 individuals on 46. We should perhaps even say that we expect one 
>fourth of the group to come from CS.
>
>>5. CONSIDERING the need for provision for the travel expenses of 
>>members from developing counties and other disadvantaged groups 
>>wishing to participate effectively in IGF deliberations, and for 
>>ensuring that the contributions of remote participants are accorded 
>>equal weight and authority as those of participants present in 
>>person.
>>
>>6. INITIATING a process of enhanced cooperation for development of 
>>globally-applicable principles on public policy issues, as called 
>>for by  paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda, to be 
>>conducted within the framework of the IGF.
>>
>>Sincerely submitted by the undersigned,
>
>In the overall, I think it's a good petition. But I'd like to 
>understand whether there's consensus on it - even if, I guess, we 
>could get a lot of signatories during the meeting (especially if we 
>don't make it too radical) and thus we should deliver it on the last 
>day.
>--
>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance