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

[Parminder]

Bill/ Milton

If IGC is at all going to propose themes for plenary sessions during May
consultation, there are three possibilities.

 One, go by the inanely broad themes like access, openness etc.

 Two, go with clear public policy issues that most people seem to be
concerned with today in the IG arena, but still keep the themes broad enough
for there to be a chance of their acceptance (or at least not being rejected
on the simple argument that it is just too specific a position for a
plenary). I had proposed three such themes in an earlier email that is
enclosed. These are 

(1)   Global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, who does it and
what is it 

(2)   ICANN - the original idea, its evolution and the its role in the
emerging context 

(3)   What is it at global policy level that really impacts access to
Internet, and through it to the knowledge commons, of disadvantaged people/
groups

I very much agree that a fourth one on the 'mandate and role of IGF' should
also be included. 


Third option is as Bill suggests, making the theme issue even more specific.
I understand that would be like listing the plenary themes specifically in
terms of, say, the 'enhanced cooperation' issue. I will welcome such a
thing. But I think that would allow MAG to too easily reject the proposal.
With the theme mentioned in a broader way, there still is a small chance. Or
at least we can argue for it righteously, as far as it goes. 

Another point, I think at these consultations we need only to give our
preferences for plenary themes (among other things) with some justification.
and it isnt the time to write out an actual proposal - as Milton and also
Bill speaks about. Or am I getting it wrong.

Parminder 



 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:54 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and
> advisory group meeting please
> 
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] who does "public policy" then?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:23:05 +0530
Size: 23787
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070423/2bb83639/attachment.eml>