[governance] caucus meeting notes

Guru@ITfC guru at itforchange.net
Mon Nov 12 09:14:12 EST 2007 

My notes .... Unedited and rough too ...  Of the caucus meeting 
Guru

1.	IGC meeting on November 11, 2007

2.	Parminder explained the agenda
3.	VittoRio gave a brief on work done so far 
a.	Mailing list discussed issues
b.	Viewpoint expressed in IGF meetings 
4.	What is the value of the IGC, we need to discuss. Now there is one
more caucus for CS (wsis gov)
5.	Izumi – can mag members give their views, on how IGC can help them
make CS work more effective
6.	Jeanette – mag finds lacking women from south
a.	Last time mag mandate came very late and could not do much
7.	Adam - Feedback – IGC should communicate more often with secretariat
to alert on issues
8.	Param – cant be sure that mag CS members can dissociate from CS 
9.	Ian peter – CS members should directly go to mag
10.	Izumi – can we have one of the coordinators member of mag. We need
to have some info sharing with CS
11.	Guru – like private sector and Government, mag members need to be
sharing info
12.	Milton – is mag getting reconstituted? Can CS/IGC help mag be
reconstituted 
13.	Param – in feb mag will be reviewed, can we focus on IGC
effectiveness through mag
14.	Jeanette – mag membership will be rotated. We should have rotation
in other groups as well, else other groups will have an advantage (due to
staying longer). Feb meeting will discuss rotation possibilities 
15.	VittoRio – can we have a more transparent process of representation
in mag. 
16.	Jeanette – if caucus comes out with positions/questions, then mag
members can represent better. Not only selection of members in mag
17.	Adam – ayesha can say – I represent business, while it is difficult
for CS. Am concerned that we will spend energies in mag selection. We should
speak on substance in feb. so IGC should push its views now for this in feb.
The panels are better in terms of CS participation this time
18.	Bill – IGC can do better, 
a.	if IGC can get position papers out – write out and share papers.
Earlier caucus used to be able to agree on texts, now we don’t
b.	Can we put in renewed effort to get common ground – maybe through
new efforts like voting techniques
c.	We rather tend to flow along since we are too busy
d.	We should talk controversial themes as well and cover development,
cir etc
e.	We should also question the main themes as well. I hope we wont keep
talking about access, openness, security
19.	Param – new methods and processes that bill suggested should be
tried and coordinators will need to work more
a.	We may need to use voting also
20.	Izumi – can coordinators share their views on what we could do
better
21.	VittoRio – we can work on procedural items but not on substantive
issues, since we are too diverse
22.	Maybe IGC can only start a discussion
23.	Param – don’t agree with VittoRio that only procedural issues can be
done by CS
24.	Jeremy – procedural suggestion – IGC communicating with secretariat
– 9/10 times I don’t get a response. Can we have a mailing list where only
coordinators and markus can post, while others can only read
25.	Anriette – APC have drafted doc on IGF process 
26.	Guru – IGC workshops idea for Rio was good, but maybe next time we
can get these people to share their positions and lead discussions before
27.	Izumu do the coordinators need more help. Do we need more
coordinators
28.	Renata – as an observer on the list, can we have more focus on
discussions on the list and share work on the list. Sometimes ‘sexy’ issues
derail discussions. 
29.	Param – need to have both the discussion and the formalizing aspects
30.	Izumi – we can sub groups or working committees to do specific work
which can go back to plenary. Maybe secretariat may not be a good area
a.	Either coordinators can nominate people or invite people to suggest
themselves for 
31.	Jeanette – coordinators should not have to give position papers for
all items. They should be able to take help of others in making positions.
Depends on how people take responsibility for this. More coordinators or new
coordinators may not help
a.	Mailing discussions gets to be aggressive. 
b.	Coordinators should work backwards on timelines to get views across,
either they present positions or request for positions
c.	When people write papers, they are doing in best interests and
should not get drastic reactions 
32.	Bill – can we have a different mailing list for activists (suggested
in Tunisia). We should have a separate group for taking positions without
being shouted down by some people. Something like working groups that can
create position papers
33.	Lee – no structure change, but coordinators should be empowered to
take decisions – appoint people who can write position papers
34.	Ralph – one reason why we are not so affective is that the ‘great’
wsis processes are over. Now we have only smaller items, which don’t need
great position papers. Smaller groups can make more impact
35.	Adam – we needed to have an opening speaker for Rio but we did not
get back to IGC in time. We need to prepare much ahead of time so that we
can get back with substance
36.	Param – need to have a calendar of events so we can be better
prepared
37.	Ian – currently we are not clear on outcomes. We seem to have a lack
of focus on outcomes.
38.	Wolfgang – agree with ian. When we established IGC in 2002 – icann
issues determined agenda for IGC. Icann planning world summit for internet
users in 2008 in paris. Can we bring together the icann and wsis communities
in paris in 2008. In same way we should have a great goal for IGC we should
approach Sebastian on working on internet user summit
39.	Jeanette how can caucus do substantial contributions for mag – we
can work on the same structure for main sessions, but we should be open to
new themes as well (bill idea). We should make substantive contributions  
40.	Ralph – IGC can’t make substantive specific contributions.. Now we
have IGF where we all participate on equal footing. 
41.	Carlos – mag membership – while business and Government mag members
share back with their groups, CS does not. As a CS representative, I am not
there on a personal basis. 
42.	Ken – the idea of IGC making a statement is good, but difficult. UN
is less and less involved in IGF – no UN person in list of speakers. 
43.	Param – I will start a discussion on the list on restructuring IGC
to make it more effective.
44.	Jeremy – transparency in mag (un secy general call) – for reporting
back. But what about secretariat itself
45.	Renata – financing for CS to attend – while some Governments have
agreed to fund participation, we need more info on this transparently 
46.	Chenegatai – we are transparent with the mag and we take their
inputs
47.	Adam – short time frames, so funding support does not reach
participant

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de] 
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:21 AM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: [governance] caucus meeting notes

Here are my rough and unedited notes from the caucus meeting today. Hope
that helps.

Best, Ralf

-----------------------------------

Internet Governance Caucus, 11 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro

0. Parminder / Vittorio: Introduction & Agenda

1. broad discussion on MAG experiences and the role of the IGC in general:

- biggest problem for MAG was finding good speakers
- MAG mandate was very late this year
- most originally proposed speakers were male from the North, MAG and Markus
Kummer had to actively recruit women and people from the South
- what could IGC have done to help here?
-> speak out more loudly on what CS wants than the MAG members could 
-> help the MAG tell the MAG members about ideas
- MAG members have a mandate from UN SG to keep their constituencies
informed
- should IGC coordinators become MAG members/observers or have a more
formalized relationship to the IGF?
- MAG members will rotate, about 1/3 each year, this is also discussed in UN
HQs,
- need to make sure that business people also rotate, which is not easy,
because they are paid to do this
- February IGF consultations must talk about stocktaking, substance and
rotation
- should CS seats in MAG be nominated by CS?
- Jeanette Hofmann: No, this formalization would only increase the overhead
and lead to side-discussions. CS MAG members are powerful if the caucus has
statements on specific issues, not because they are elected.
- but known difficulties for IGC to come up with position papers
- is the caucus in a position anymore to do this?
- we might need to use the voting system for this.
- easy to agree on procedural issues, but less easy on substance
- IGC and CS need clearer identity, but also clearer idea of what the stakes
really are (if we are a "stakeholder")
- Jeremy Malcolm: new mailing list (read-only), where only IGC coordinators
and IGF secretariat can post? Would increase transparency?
- IGC might become more effective if we create working groups etc?
- what are we here for in the first place?
- Wolfgang Kleinwächter: should we develop a CS declaration on IG as a
fundamental guiding document? There will be a World Summit of Internet Users
in Paris next year that could adopt it.
- Ralf Bendrath: Not sure if distinct CS statements are really helpful and
that much needed, because the conditions have changed. In WSIS, we were an
observer group and had to try and influence the Tunis Agenda or the Geneva
Declaration. The IGF does not produce these kinds of outcomes anymore, and
we participate on a very equal footing with everybody else.

2. Election of coordinators

- Vittorio's term is ending. We need to have (re-)elections soon.
- Unclear yet if Vittorio is willing to do it again.
- structural issues of the IGC have to be addressed and resolved before
people can decide if they want to become coordinator
____________________________________________________________
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