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

Tue Apr 24 00:16:14 EDT 2007

> 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,

On the contrary, I think that all those who have participated in the 'ICANN
at IGF' discussion on either side, have indicated that though they may
having varying misgivings on the issue,  in the end they have
no_REAL_problem in ICANN being discussed at IGF. I am quite hopeful that we
will be able to include ICANN on our IGF agenda proposal, and that there is
no real opposition to this.

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: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:19 PM
> To: parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand
> advisory group meeting please
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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