AW: [governance] Framework convention

[Adam Peake]

Bill,

I hope you will prepare this as a workshop proposal.  We don't know 
how that proposal process will work this year, but I would be 
surprised if it we're too much different from last.

I also think it might fit as an emerging issue in Internet governance 
(it's not been discussed before, but identified as important.) An 
"emerging issue" session will be tried again, but in what format is 
not yet clear (session structure and modalities should I think be 
discussed at the May consultation).  But discussion of governance 
mechanisms seems to me to be something that could be raised in that 
session, and could then link nicely to a workshop.

Presenting issues broadly in the main sessions so they link to 
workshops where they're examined in more depth is the kind of 
feedback/advice we heard as desirable during stocktaking in February. 
Greater linkage between the main sessions and workshops, i.e. a more 
coherent/tighter agenda.

As for WSIS principles/enhanced cooperation.  Think the principles 
were far less of a last minute deal than whatever enhanced 
cooperation might be.  And they exist firmly in the mandate of the 
IGF (72/i) where enhanced cooperation is a separate process (or so it 
is argued.)

Thanks,

Adam




At 10:33 AM +0200 4/21/07, William Drake wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>  Alejandro:
>>
>>  Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of
>>  organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not
>>  comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started 
>>a discussion
>>  here.
>
>Actually Alex, this is not true.  Maybe you weren't reading the list much at
>the time, but I and a few others raised the issue a number of times here,
>and if memory serves the caucus issued statements during and after WSIS
>calling for for further work to assess both intergovernmental and private
>sector governance mechanisms according to the criteria.  But there was
>significant push back.  For example, when I gave a talk at an OECD meeting
>and argued for a work program under IGF on this, I was told by the EU and
>industry reps that, in effect, WSIS was over and nobody cares (on the other
>hand, I said the same thing at an ITU reform meeting and didn't get the same
>reaction; they at least now have a process looking at CS involvement, have
>made the standards free, etc).  And when I wanted to propose a workshop on
>this for Athens, I was strongly discouraged from doing so on the grounds
>that it was too sensitive, all the relevant organizations and their key
>constituencies would be unhappy, and hence the workshop would not be
>approved (as it happened, all proposals were approved, so I guess I
>shouldn't have listened).
>
>I remain convinced that there's a need for analysis, dialogue, and
>monitoring/reporting on the ways in which intergovernmental and private
>sector governance mechanisms do (or don't) transparency and inclusive
>participation, with an eye, at a minimum, to identifying generalizable good
>practices.  In fact, as I argued in Parminder's FC workshop in Athens, this
>is one area where I could imagine a FC being useful and doable.  Process is
>easier to agree on than substance, at least in principle, and after all,
>governments have already gone on record in WSIS saying that IG should always
>be transparent and inclusive, so it's not like starting from scratch.  Who's
>afraid of "good governance"?
>
>  I'd like to do for Rio what mistakenly I didn't do for Athens, propose an
>workshop that would flesh out the idea.  Would you support doing this?
>Would ICANN?  I'd be happy to have co-sponsorship...
>
>>  Wolfgang:
>
>[snip]
>
>>  What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF
>>  2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any
>>  direction?
>
>Perhaps one could conclude that like the WSIS principles, the language on
>enhanced cooperation was not a serious statement of intent on the part of
>some key parties, but rather a way to cut a deal, end WSIS with a
>declaration of nominal agreement, and go home and back to business as usual?
>But also that as with the WSIS principles, the language can still offer
>possibilities for normative pressuring to take seriously the outcomes of
>three years of effort...
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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