[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[Adam Peake]

What is there to learn from the Aarhus 
Convention -- ask because it was the subject of 
at least part of a workshop in Athens 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Athens_workshops/GreeningIT_Workshop_report_PAN_MST.pdf>.

Ignoring the environment specific stuff, some 
text from the report of the Athens workshop:

3.2. The existing parallel between the guiding 
principles of Internet Governance and the 
principles employed by environmental 
sustainability policy instruments like the Aarhus 
Convention, needs to be further explored and 
exploited. Common features and lessons learned 
include:

* the principle of subsidiarity in decision 
making which is inherent for sustainable 
development policies is particularly relevant for 
Internet Governance and ICT policies;
* multi-stakeholder involvement -- already 
implemented by the Aarhus Convention;
* broad public participation in an international 
fora -- already implemented by the Aarhus 
Convention;
* Creating a regulatory framework that obliges 
governments and the business to maintain 
electronically environmental databases and 
proactively share information with the public by 
means of telecommunications networks, as already 
implemented by the Aarhus Convention and its 
protocol on Pollution Release and Transfer 
Registers.
* Self regulation mechanisms like electronic 
public consultations and a formal compliance 
mechanism have already been tried and implemented 
by the Aarhus Convention.

and

4. Inventory of events and actors related to the 
issue under discussion The workshop focused on 
the development and use of policy and 
institutional mechanisms which employ Internet 
and ICT instruments to strengthen the capacity of 
civil society for participation in 
decision-making. A case example of an 
international policy instrument was presented at 
the workshop -- the UNECE Convention on Access to 
Information, Public Participation in Decision 
making and Access to Justice in Environmental 
Matters. The convention, referred to as the 
Aarhus Convention, sets institutional and policy 
examples which bridge the gap between 
environmental sustainability and information 
society. ICTs featured little in Millennium 
Development Goals' (MDGs) review by the 
Millennium Project, and barely in UNDP's Human 
Development Report. The impact of ICTs for 
sustainable development also received scant 
attention during WSIS. Coordination between these 
two major international policy processes needs 
improvement.


Helpful?

I get the feeling that continuation of themes 
from Athens may be a selling point.  But may be 
wrong.

Adam







>Bill,
>
>Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance 
>would have to cover all of the major policy 
>areas that need some agreement in order to 
>ensure the orderly development of the Internet 
>and clearly would have to go beyond core 
>resources, but the core resources would have to 
>be dealt with as a key issue.  The scope of an 
>FC would be subject to negotiation but, to 
>anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should 
>deal with issues where existing regimes overlap 
>or conflict.
>
>Best,
>
>John
>On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote:
>
>>Hi John,
>>
>>Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion.  
>>In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and 
>>Mawaki out here and indicate whether this would 
>>be intended to address just the governance of 
>>core resources, or IG more generally?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>John Mathiason wrote:
>>>Bill,
>>>An interesting challenge, which deserves to be 
>>>taken up.  There are  now enough ideas out 
>>>there to try to put together a more complete 
>>>analysis of what a Framework Convention on 
>>>Internet Governance might  look like.  In 
>>>addition to the Climate Change Convention 
>>>(UNFCCC), we  now have the WHO Tobacco 
>>>convention (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ 
>>>framework/en/) which is a framework convention 
>>>in that it specifies  principles (tobacco is 
>>>bad) and norms (public policy should address 
>>>demand) but leaves many of the details to 
>>>further negotiation. Both  provide interesting 
>>>precedents on which to draw.  It being the 
>>>end-of- semester in the groves of academia, 
>>>the revised paper may take a  couple of weeks, 
>>>but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before 
>>>the  next IGF consultations on 23 May.
>>>Best,
>>>John
>>>>
>>____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
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