[governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Parminder,

>> 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). 

It would only work for generic Top Level Domains. For ccTLDs, it would 
be too complicated and take decades to reach agreement.
> 
> 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. 

I am not submitting anything. Make use of it if you like although I 
would prefer to hear other opinions first.

jeanette
> 
> 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