[governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please

[William Drake]

Hi Milton,

Too many threads, too little time...

On 4/22/07 10:54 PM, "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> OK, Adam. I'll bite.
> 
> As a first proposition, I would reiterate something I said ten days ago,
> and which received a couple expressions of support (and no direct
> opposition I can recall):
> 
>> I wonder whether the IGF powers that be would be amenable to having a
>> plenary theme on "global public policy for the Internet-- do we need
> it,
>> who does it and what is it?"

I responded a couple weeks ago when Parminder included this in a three part
proposal, didn't know the language originated with you. I think it's too
broadly formulated as is, and that a plenary session on this would go all
over the place.  But if you can elaborate something something more
internally differentiated and tractable, then the mAG would have a more
plausible proposal to reject, and you'd have the basis for a good workshop
proposal. 

In a similar vein, we might want to consider including for rejection another
call for a discussion on the IGF's mandate.  Below for reference are what
Vittorio included on this in the statement for the February consultation,
and the longer bit I drafted pre-Athens before we decided that a caucus
statement to an actual forum meeting would be inappropriate.  Anyone still
interested in this, or no?

BD
--------

Feb. 2007 Consultation submission

We think that this and future consultations before Rio should examine in
detail the various parts of the IGF mandate as defined in paragraph 72 of
the Tunis Agenda, and specifically how to deal with those that were not
addressed in Athens. For example, commas (f) and (i) require the IGF to
discuss the good principles of Internet governance, as agreed in Tunis, and
how to fully implement them inside all existing governance processes,
including how to facilitate participation by disadvantaged stakeholders such
as developing countries, civil society, and individual users. We expect this
to be an additional theme for Rio.

Fall 2006 draft

The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate
discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international
public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing
body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other
institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of
information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the
expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; strengthen
and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future
Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the
relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in
developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the
embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder
participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance
processes. 
 
These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be
performed by any other Internet governance mechanism.  But while governments
and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, they also cannot be
performed by annual conferences that largely consist of presentations by
invited speakers.  We therefore would welcome an opportunity for open
dialogue with other participants on how the IGF could fulfill these and
other elements of its mandate. 


____________________________________________________________
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