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

[Milton Mueller]

Parminder:
Forgive me for missing the original email. 

Your three proposals are good ideas, they would need a bit more work
but I agree that what IGC needs to do now is put forward simple
recommendations to the MAG and the IGF Secretariat, and _not_ get bogged
down in wordsmithing and long explanations which only detract from the
main thrust. 

For example, people who don't want to talk explicitly about ICANN in
the Forum will oppose #2) no matter how it is written and what it says,
so let's not waste a lot of time debating how it is phrased or
elaborated. 

One thing I would point out is that one of your proposals (3),
corresponds to the general "access" theme. 
I would reformulate it as follows: 

"Under the general theme of access, we would like to have a plenary
session devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance
policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access
to the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to
identify and explore the specific institutional mechanisms, resource
allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms
that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access." 

If Bill can come up with an equally concise description of his
"conformity to Geneva WSIS principles" idea then we can add a fourth. 

>>> parminder at itforchange.net 4/23/2007 6:08:58 AM >>>
(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
____________________________________________________________
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