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

[Parminder]

Bill

I agree that the subject of global public policy, both in terms of substance
and process, needs to go through a process of maturation. I think IGF
discussions are a good place to undertake this maturation process.

 In fact, I can suggest specific issues, on substance - cross border content
flow and regulation, IPR/ strengthening public domain on the Internet,
market principles versus public goods principles as basis for IG,
multilingualism, e-commence, cybercrime etc etc , and on process - EC, GAC,
FC, new multistakeholder processes, UN based systems etc etc..... However, I
myself think that at this stage the public policy issue is in a relatively
early stage of evolution, and a more open approach to gather different ideas
and perspectives will work better.

On whether MAG will like to have more details, frankly, I am not able to
make out whether they prefer fewer details (broader themes) or greater
details (specific themes) for the plenary. A good part of the back-and-forth
we have gone into here comes from this ambiguity in our understanding. If
IGF indeed prefers more specific themes, I am happy to suggest a plenary on
'the present state of play on enhanced cooperation'. Our reps in the MAG may
helps us on understand the general orientation of MAG or the higher-than-MAG
governance systems of IGF in this regard better.

Meanwhile, my understanding remains that IGF is even less likely to accept
as EC kind of specific theme, so my proposal for the following four themes
stands. And suggestions/ inputs are being taken.

(1) 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and institutions'

(2) ICANN - its role and processes at present, and in the emerging context

(3) Global Internet policies impacting access and effective use of Internet
by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG

(4)Mandate and role of IGF

The current language for 1, 3 and 4 is given below. Lee  McKnight gave the
theme 2, he or/and others may want to contribute specific language for it.

Meanwhile we are also taking inputs on other aspects of IGF 2, like its
plenary design, workshops design, supporting participation of people the
costs of attending, IGF's own proactive agenda of workshops and research,
overview/ background papers, approach toward dynamic coalitions etc... Other
topics for taking in suggestions are also welcome. 

Parminder 

___________


(1) 'Global public policy on Internet - issues and institutions' plenary 

Internet as THE infrastructure of an emerging IS brings on both new
challenges for global public policy making, as well as new opportunities of
managing a global polity. What are these public policy issues, which are the
right/ legitimate avenues for dealing with them, and how existing global
public policy bodies may need to change and/or new ones take shape
constitute an important set of questions, for which IGF is the right forum
for discussion, and if possible moving towards a consensus. "Discussing
public policy issues" regarding IG is also the first point in the mandate
for IGF as per Tunis agenda'. TA deals at length with the question of new
global public policy issues regarding IG and the possibility of new
frameworks and structures (and/or reinforcing existing ones)(p 61, 69), and
there is a feeling/recognition that the task of both recognizing these
issues, and improvising global governance structures adequate to dealing
with them is an agenda that WSIS gave broad direction about, but left it to
post-WSIS processes to formalize. IGF was envisioned as a key forum to
enable/ assist this process (see for instance TA 72 b, that mandates IGF to
"facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting
international public policies regarding the Internet"). This panel will
examine these key issues/questions as well as specific institutional
arrangements and processes like that of 'enhanced cooperation'.  

(2) ICANN - its role and processes at present, and in the emerging context -
elaboration to come

(3) Global Internet policies impacting access to and effective use of the
Internet by disadvantage people and groups - The development agenda in IG

"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, and effective
use of, the Internet and their access to knowledge? This panel would try to
identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms,
resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing
mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on
access to, and effective use of, the Internet."

(4) role and mandate of IGF

The Tunis Agenda mandated 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;  identify emerging issues,
bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public,
and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an
ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance
processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot
be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual
conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the
purpose of this panel would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on
how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. 


________________________________________________
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: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:30 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand
> advisory group meeting please
> 
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> Thanks for taking the first step, it advances the conversation.  It seems
> though the text below is all about the need to talk about global public
> policies as a general matter, rather than what global public policies in
> particular need to be talked about.  I suspect that the mAG would need
> more
> to go on in thinking about the viability of such a session.  Anyway, this
> shouldn't be a bilateral conversation, let's hear what others would want
> to
> have in a caucus input doc.
> 
> Re: your other message on the discussion process, no worries, on the same
> page.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BD
> 
> 
> On 4/27/07 11:33 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> >> You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question,
> so
> >> I
> >> gave you a few sentences.  Milton's provided a few sentences on the
> access
> >> of disadvantaged people/groups.  I'm simply asking you to do the same
> for
> >> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing.
> >
> > This is my suggestion for the 'Global public policy on Internet - issues
> and
> > institutions' plenary theme for IGF
> >
> > Internet as THE infrastructure of an emerging IS brings on both new
> > challenges for global public policy making, as well as new opportunities
> of
> > managing a global polity. What are these public policy issues, which are
> the
> > right/ legitimate avenues for dealing with them, and how existing global
> > public policy bodies may need to change and/or new ones take shape
> > constitute an important set of questions, for which IGF is the right
> forum
> > for discussion, and if possible moving towards a consensus. "Discussing
> > public policy issues" regarding IG is also the first point in the
> mandate
> > for IGF as per Tunis agenda'. TA deals at length with the question of
> new
> > global public policy issues regarding IG and the possibility of new
> > frameworks and structures (and/or reinforcing existing ones)(p 61, 69),
> and
> > there is a feeling/recognition that the task of both recognizing these
> > issues, and improvising global governance structures adequate to dealing
> > with them is an agenda that WSIS gave broad direction about, but left it
> to
> > post-WSIS processes to formalize. IGF was envisioned as a key forum to
> > enable/ assist this process (see for instance TA 72 b, that mandates IGF
> to
> > "facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-
> cutting
> > international public policies regarding the Internet"). This panel will
> > examine these key issues/questions as well as specific institutional
> > arrangements and processes like that of 'enhanced cooperation'.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > 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: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:04 PM
> >> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand
> >> advisory group meeting please
> >>
> >> Hi Parminder,
> >>
> >> On 4/26/07 6:56 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Sorry, I'm still not following.  On what specific issues &
> institutions
> >>>> within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved
> >>>> questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who
> does
> >>>> it and what is it"?
> >>>
> >>> Bill, I have discussed in an earlier email that we need to take a
> >> position
> >>> somewhere in between 'access and openness' kind of issues, and asking
> >> for a
> >>> plenary exclusively on too narrow a topic/position like 'enhanced
> >>> cooperation' (is this, or such, your intention?). I have also
> mentioned
> >>> that, in my view, this may not be the stage for giving fully fleshed
> out
> >>> plenary proposals (there is no call for it) but to propose generally
> the
> >>> themes we may want to be taken up. In this session we can and should
> of
> >>> course discuss EC among other things. Details can be worked out later.
> >>
> >> Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I
> >> don't
> >> think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you
> said
> >> at
> >> some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed.
> If
> >> however you proposed concrete language on something, that I'd save and
> >> look
> >> back at.  I've said several times I this is very broad, I don't know
> what
> >> you have in mind, please clarify, and as that hasn't happened you
> cannot
> >> expect that people with very diverse opinions are going to all agree
> that
> >> yes, the caucus should say we want a plenary on a topic that's framed
> like
> >> a
> >> cloud.
> >>
> >> You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question,
> so
> >> I
> >> gave you a few sentences.  Milton's provided a few sentences on the
> access
> >> of disadvantaged people/groups.  I'm simply asking you to do the same
> for
> >> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing.  I
> don't
> >> understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the
> >> process
> >> absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say
> >> what
> >> we mean is not a good use of anyone's time.
> >>
> >>>> I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such
> >> concepts;"
> >>>> "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to
> >>>> me.  And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session
> about
> >>>> ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for
> >>>> mass consumption in a plenary.
> >>>
> >>> When I speak of EC, FC and all such concepts' I mean various
> approaches
> >> that
> >>> have been spoken of to address the issue of global public policy
> >> (substance
> >>> and process) in IG arena. I am not sure I understand your apples and
> >> oranges
> >>> logic completely... but as I understand, the oranges logic is that EC
> is
> >>> only about public policy related to ICANN, but Tunis agenda doesn't
> seem
> >> to
> >>> suggest this (p 69 TA). Neither did I get this impression from
> majority
> >> of
> >>> discussions on this list....
> >>
> >> I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names
> and
> >> numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions
> on
> >> which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who
> >> does
> >> it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved.
> In
> >> reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known,
> so
> >> I
> >> can't imagine the mAG being enticed.  Again, if you can't identify
> what's
> >> in
> >> the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth
> doing,
> >> and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers,
> >> then
> >> I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic.
> >>
> >>> And your oranges logic is even more difficult to understand. You seem
> to
> >> say
> >>> that there aren't any significant Internet related (non ICANN) public
> >> policy
> >>> issues at the global level, or at least not ripe enough to be
> discussed.
> >> We
> >>
> >> No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree
> to
> >> discuss.  Of course there are issues, but the number of people who
> think
> >> that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as
> >> described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather
> >> small.
> >>
> >>> spent a lot of time at WSIS to get such public policy issue recognized
> >> and
> >>> for the documents to make note of at least some space/ process for
> >>> addressing these issues (for instance p 61). Why are we now shy to
> speak
> >> of
> >>> them?? As I said, I am not able to get a good grip on your position.
> >>
> >> My position is please be clear, full stop.  Please don't misread
> anything
> >> else into it beyond that.
> >>
> >>> In any case, to pose a direct question, since at this stage we are
> more
> >>> interested in developing a common IG position - Do you NOT want a
> >> plenary on
> >>> IG related public policy issues/ mechanisms at IGF 2?
> >>
> >> If I know what it's about and it sounds important and worth doing, of
> >> course.  I suspect others would like to know this first, too.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> BD
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
> Director, Project on the Information
>   Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
>   Graduate Institute for International Studies
>   Geneva, Switzerland
> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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