[governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting

Parminder Parminder at ITforChange.net
Thu Feb 1 08:29:03 EST 2007



 > 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.

I did not mean it for IGC's submission, but the one I plan to make on behalf of
organisation tomorrow. The two are seperate. 
Parminder

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


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

> 
> 
> 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



More information about the Governance mailing list