[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content

[Parminder]

Sorry, I didn't enclosed Bill email as stated..

The following is the draft text of our submission, on the content part, to
the IGF consultations on the 23rd this, for developing the agenda, themes
and structure of the Rio IGF 2 meeting. Inputs are being taken over the next
three day - 7th to 9th - before it is put up as a final text for seeking
consensus. 

(starts)

(1) Plenary on Internet Global Public Policy

A call to "discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
governance" is the first point in the IGF mandate in the  Tunis agenda. The
Agenda deals at length with the question of new  global public policy issues
regarding IG, the possibility of new frameworks and structures, and the role
of existing ones (e.g,  paragraphs 61, 69). We therefore believe that an IGF
Plenary session should explore the following topics: 

a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to  use
global institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda  distinguishes between
"technical" and "public policy" issues, and  between public policy and the
"day-to-day technical and operational  matters." What makes an Internet
governance issue a "public policy"  issue, and what happens when policy
concerns are closely linked to  technical administration?

b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of
globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated  with the
coordination and management of critical Internet resources"  and how can
this goal be pursued?


(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources

Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the IGF.
Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic  in the Tunis
Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are
administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This session
should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these
institutions. In particular, ICANN's  status as an international
organization, its representation of individual users, and the changing role
of the  GAC within ICANN should be discussed. 


(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.

(ends)

Parminder 

________________________________________________
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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 3:05 PM
> To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton Mueller'
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content
> 
> I agree we need to work fast on this. A couple of suggestions/
> contributions.
> 
> > First, we need to transform the draft in something
> > coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a
> > final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48
> > hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be
> > scheduled for, say, May 13-16.
> 
> To keep things relatively neat, quick, and likely to produce best
> outcomes,
> I propose that
> 
> (1) for our internal processes of acceptance/adoption by the IGC we
> separate
> the content part from other parts of the statement. . We can then pull it
> together while actually making the statement. The two parts will be
> distinct
> even in the final statement so that there are no substantive changes after
> the two parts of the statement are accepted by the caucus.
> 
> (2) I will like to put the two parts for consensus sooner, so that they
> could be voted upon if necessary, and/or also make to the written input
> stage for incorporation into the synthesis doc for the meeting.
> 
> My proposal is that we collect inputs into the 4 part theme structure as
> per
> Bill's email enclosed here over the next three days, 7th to 9th, on 9th
> night we put the 'content' doc up for rough consensus and wait for 48
> hours.
> If adopted, we submit it for 14th deadline of written inputs. If not, we
> put
> it for vote and if then adopted take it directly to the meeting as a
> spoken
> statement.
> 
> I will try and propose an intro para or two for thematic or content
> submission which will make the point (in the spirit of our submission of
> themes) that IGF 2 needs to be different than IGF 1 in terms of its
> substantive content, and that it should address real issues that most
> concern people today in the IG realm, and in the language that they are
> mostly formulated in public spaces. And that this will enable it to
> fulfill
> its mandate under p72 much better. If anyone will like to draft this intro
> paras for 'content' submission, please do.
> 
> Parminder
> ________________________________________________
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:49 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
> > Cc: Parminder
> > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
> >
> > Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the
> > > statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it
> > > accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can
> > > we ACT, please?
> >
> > Ok, don't jump. First, we need to transform the draft in something
> > coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a
> > final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48
> > hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be
> > scheduled for, say, May 13-16.
> >
> > This is something that Parminder and I can do (not having spoken with
> > Parminder yet), but first I would like to clear the substance of what we
> > are going to say.
> >
> > As per the draft, we would be asking to:
> >
> > 1) have a "plenary session" on some cross-cutting theoretical issues
> > about what is or is not public policy etc.;
> >
> > 2) have a "main session" on ICANN (with people suggesting either to
> > broaden it to IETF/W3C/ITU etc, or not to make it so focused on specific
> > details such as GAC, individual user representation etc);
> >
> > 3) have a "plenary session" on access for disadvantaged people;
> >
> > 4) copy and paste of para 72.
> >
> > About 4), I think I missed what would be the purpose of that - please
> > advise.
> >
> > About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main
> > session" and "plenary session", but I assume that the proposers mean a
> > big session like one of the four devoted to each theme in Athens. Now,
> > could the AG members please tell me whether that's a reasonable request
> > to make? It doesn't look so - I mean, I guess that even if the draft
> > programme is flexible, it's unlikely that more plenary sessions (apart
> > from those already scheduled) can be added, specifically if on
> > specialized issues as opposed to the main themes. The only timeslot I
> > see theoretically available is the early one on Monday 14:00-16:00.
> >
> > The one main session that one could try to push for (because it's really
> > missing from the program, I think), is a session on cross-cutting
> > issues, say 1) but also the various framework convention-type efforts,
> > and perhaps also "where is the IGF going".
> >
> > For 2) and 3), I think that reasonable suggestions would be to put these
> > as one of a few main points in the main session for the related theme
> > (3) is access, 2)... ok, not totally clear, but perhaps access as well?
> > or security?). Alternately, propose workshops (BTW - any idea on
> > workshop selection criteria?)
> >
> > Or, there is a slot labelled "topical issue" which I guess is still TBD
> > - can people from the AG enlighten on what it is? Should we propose
> > topics for it?
> >
> > Finally, given that the draft schedule came out, I guess that comments
> > on it would be helpful. I can pick up what we said in February and
> > extract / summarize a few practical suggestions, would that be useful?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> > -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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