[governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting

[Parminder]

Jeanette

> I would recommend that you take into account the temporary mandate of 
> the IGF. Some of your suggestions such as a more permanent structure can 
>   probably only be considered towards the end of the mandate when the 
> future of the IGF will be discussed.

This to push them toward greater 'structurality' required for greater activity
in order to fulfil IGF's mandate... But I agree, I can change the term
'permanent structure' to ' a more substantial structure' in view of the fact
taht TA does require a review after 5 years. 

> A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require 
> funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What 
> about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it 
> goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF 
> gets also a share?

Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' on domain names
is a good idea, since the money is to be used for IG related public policy
activity. In any case, with the new proposal regarding the .xxx domain such an
idea of a tax kind of thing for a public policy purpose is already being mooted
(as a contribution to child safety organizations, and development of user end
content control technologies). 

With your permission can I include the above suggestion in the submission to the
IGF, unless you are also submitting this proposal in response to their
questionaire. 

Parminder


Parminder

www.ITforChange.net
IT for Change
Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities


Quoting Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>:

> Hi Parminder, I agree with most of your points and suggestions made in 
> the contribution posted below.
> I would recommend that you take into account the temporary mandate of 
> the IGF. Some of your suggestions such as a more permanent structure can 
>   probably only be considered towards the end of the mandate when the 
> future of the IGF will be discussed.
> 
> A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require 
> funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What 
> about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it 
> goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF 
> gets also a share?
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> > 
> > Hi All, 
> > 
> > Requesting once again for points that need to be take up at the stock
> taking
> > meeting, which paticipants from the IGC may be able to raise at the
> meeitng.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, I am forwarding a document which we will submit tomorrow to the
> IGF
> > to meet its deadline of the 2nd for making it to the synthesis paper.
> Elements
> > from this documents may also be considered, if found useful, by Vittorio to
> seek
> > a consensus document for the meeting. 
> > 
> > Parminder
> > 
> > Taking stock and the way forward 
> > (contribution by IT for Change, in response to the IGF questionnaire for
> the
> > stock taking meeting in Geneva) 
> > 
> > 
> > What worked well? 
> > 
> > The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong
> > participation of governments nonetheless, worked well. The distributed
> workshop
> > sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all requests
> for
> > workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders,
> > especially those from civil society who tend to be left out from agenda
> setting
> > positions in global policy forums.
> > 
> > The innovation of setting up ‘dynamic coalitions’ appears to hold promise
> to
> > develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and to
> > possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. 
> > 
> > What worked less well?
> > 
> > The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only
> perhaps)
> > fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in
> > subsequent meetings. We need more focused sessions conducted by subject
> experts,
> > and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an
> informed
> > discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in
> huge
> > conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused
> subject
> > areas will help greatly. This will increase the topic selection
> responsibility
> > of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time available for the Rio meeting this
> can
> > be attempted to be done through a participatory process. However, some
> crucial
> > decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG.
> > 
> > Although the overall thematic focus of the Athens meet was on development,
> most
> > workshops did not address this issue. This shows the limitations of just
> opening
> > up a ‘facilitative’ forum without direct support and action to highlight
> and
> > discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be
> > disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This also makes the case for the
> IGF
> > to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution
> being
> > required by the IGF’s mandate listed below. 
> > 
> > Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting?
> > 
> > Our concern remains that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at
> the
> > Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate given
> by
> > the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of what is meant to be done
> regarding
> > the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF’s role as a
> facilitative
> > forum for open discussion, to issues like interacting with different IG
> related
> > organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse between them (72 b),
> facilitate
> > the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building
> (h),
> > promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet
> governance
> > processes (i), advice stakeholders (e),  identify emerging issues and make
> > recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). 
> > 
> > The stock taking meeting should do a serious exercise to develop processes
> and
> > structures in the IGF that can enable it to meet these parts of its
> mandate. A
> > couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below:
> > 
> > 1.	All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, ITU,
> > WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF
> meeting to
> > enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also ‘facilitating discourse between
> them’.
> > 
> > 2.	The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on various
> > important themes of IG, employing experts, especially in under-researched
> areas
> > like developmental aspects of IG. This must be an ongoing exercise. (To
> cite an
> > example, similar work was done by the UN ICT Task Force.) This will enable
> the
> > IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas.
> > 
> > 3.	At its annual meeting, and in the in-between periods, IGF should be able
> to
> > hold workshops of its own (other than those held by various stakeholders)
> on key
> > themes – for example, on the issue of promoting and assessing ‘’the
> embodiment
> > of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes’ and on development
> issues
> > in IG. These workshops should also be held in the regional and national
> contexts.
> > 
> > 4.	To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other
> required
> > responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish some kind of a permanent
> structure.
> > This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this
> stock
> > taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of
> funds. 
> > 
> > 
> > Any other comments or suggestions?
> > 
> > Included in above. 
> > 
> > Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions
> received
> > and which was translated in all UN languages, meet a real need? Should a
> similar
> > paper be prepared prior to the next meeting?
> > 
> > Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be produced.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting "l.d.misek-falkoff" <ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com>:
> > 
> >> Dear Parminder, Vittorio,  and All:
> >>
> >> Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions.
> >>
> >> In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with
> >> appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters:
> >>
> >> From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving
> *Dialogue
> >> * While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and
> enterprise
> >> models of many sorts -  sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the
> >> board is very important.
> >>
> >> The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and shall
> >> with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects of
> >> Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging:
> >> ** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, *C*hecking,
> and
> >> *T*ransfer. *
> >>
> >> These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to
> guard
> >> against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished"
> end-products
> >> and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target
> >> audience" marketing strategies.
> >>
> >> And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the *
> >> inclusiveness* present here.
> >>
> >> P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more
> events
> >> will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially
> >> where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in Athens
> >> the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through
> >> inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in themselves
> !
> >> ).
> >>
> >> Best wishes and warm regards, Linda.
> >> Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff
> >> *Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination Committee
> For
> >> the U.N. (NGO).
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/30/07, Parminder <Parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views
> expressed
> >>> on
> >>> this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant
> make
> >>> it to
> >>> the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are
> able
> >>> to
> >>> agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC
> >>> by IGC
> >>> members participating in the meeting...
> >>>
> >>> so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what
> points
> >>> will
> >>> you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct
> of
> >>> IGF
> >>> meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format
> >>> given at
> >>> http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of
> what
> >>> is
> >>> being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed
> in
> >>> a more
> >>> open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a
> >>> possible
> >>> consensus document.
> >>>
> >>> Parminder
> >>>
> >>> www.ITforChange.net
> >>> IT for Change
> >>> Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Quoting Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon.
> >>>> can you send the details on where/when this will be held?
> >>>>
> >>>> in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/
> >>>> where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere.  i am
> >>>> willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community
> >>>> wiki is the better option.
> >>>>
> >>>> i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to
> >>>> be in Geneva at the time.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks
> >>>> a.
> >>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> 
____________________________________________________________
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