[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Vittorio Bertola]

Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto:
> Would you have time to make the suggested changes yourself to the online 
> version at http://igfwatch.org/petition/? 

Ok, this is my try.

About "petitioning", I addressed the document to "all fellow IGF 
participants", I think that is more in line with Adam's observations.

In the end, while I support it, I think that the point on ICANN & 
enhanced cooperation (which is a substance point where there is lots of 
heated disagreement) does not really fit with the rest, which is all on 
process. Perhaps it could be pruned?

In general, this is now too long and I agree with Bill that we might 
want to shorten it and only focus on a few key points, I'd say full 
respect of the mandate, deliberative processes, working groups, and AG 
representation. We could easily strike the entire two initial paras, for 
example.

Here it is.

=======
To all fellow participants to the Internet Governance Forum:

We consider 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; and we would like to express our strong appreciation for the 
value that the IGF brings to global policy arena and for the hard work 
of the Secretariat and the Advisory Group to date.

While we are committed to full cooperation with an IGF process that 
embodies multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent 
principles, we are however concerned that these principles are not left 
behind in the unavoidable haste of all parties to convene and 
successfully conclude the IGF's inaugural meeting in Athens.

We would then like to raise to the attention of all fellow IGF 
participants and stakeholders a few key points, and ask for them to be 
collectively received and implemented in Athens and beyond.

First of all, 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.

Ultimately, we see the IGF as a body that can also 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. We thus 
request the development of structures and processes for the IGF within 
which such deliberation may take place, enabling the IGF to fulfill its 
mandate given in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, including 
sub-paragraphs (c), (e), (g) and (k), all of which clearly bespeak a 
strong element of agency on the part of the IGF.

We suggest the IGF to develop, in an open and collaborative process, a 
structure of Working Groups 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.

We see the need to increase the transparency and inclusiveness of IGF 
processes, opening these processes to receive the input of all 
stakeholders. Specifically, we think that stakeholder groups should be 
free to self-select their representatives in the IGF Advisory Group, 
under clearly defined, transparent and accountable procedures. All 
stakeholder groups identified in Tunis should be adequately represented 
in the Advisory Group; we note with dissatisfaction the limited presence 
of civil society nominees in the current Advisory Group (only 5 over 46 
members), much less than one fourth of the group, and constituting a 
significant step back in respect to the WGIG.

We stress the need for provisions to cover the travel expenses of 
members from developing countries 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.

The IGF as realized in Athens meets only a limited and insufficient part 
of its mandate as described by paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda. We thus 
call for the cooperation of all stakeholders to address this matter.

/* We finally call for 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. === NICE, BUT DOES IT FIT WITH THE REST? */

Sincerely submitted by the undersigned,
-- 
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