[governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Thu Feb 1 08:09:54 EST 2007 

Without funds, the IGF will continue to be pretty 
much what it was in Athens. (that's very 
cynical... but there's a great deal that can be 
improved with money, and very hard to improve 
without.)

Whatever so end up saying --and I think it's late 
to start worrying about a consensus document-- at 
a minimum I hope we can strongly support and 
encourage Mr Desai to continue as chair of the 
advisory group. Responding to Michael's question 
of yesterday:

At 12:35 AM -0800 2/1/07, michael_leibrandt at web.de wrote:
>  do we have some ideas who could follow Nitin if he doesn't continue
>as the chair?

I cannot think of anyone who could replace him!

Adam




At 1:32 PM +0100 2/1/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>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 Œdynamic coalitions¹ 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 Œfacilitative¹ 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 IGF¹s 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 IGF¹s 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 Œfacilitating discourse between them¹.
>>
>>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 Œ¹the embodiment
>>of WSIS principles in Internet governance 
>>processes¹ 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

More information about the Governance mailing list