[governance] Updates to IGF web page

[Adam Peake]

At 6:49 PM +0200 9/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>Thanks Avri.
>
>As far as I am concerned, the Links to Everton's 
>papers are not accessible (ie i cannot open 
>them). is it my machine ?



Dear Bertrand the links are:

<http://www.intgovforum.org/EL_paper1_3Sept2007.doc>
and
<http://www.intgovforum.org/EL_paper2_3Sept2007.doc>

I wasn't able to attend the the 2nd day of the 
MAG meeting when Everton submitted these papers, 
I do not know how they were discussed or why they 
were accepted by the group, seems a bit unusual. 
I saw the papers last night when I got off a 
flight from Geneva to Boston and sent a rough 
reaction (i.e. not very well thought out :-) to 
the MAG list.  My comments on Everton's paper 
below.

Best,

Adam



At 10:37 AM +0900 9/6/07, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>Dear Everton, colleagues:
>
>I am tired after travelling from Geneva to the
>US, but here are some initial comments on the
>paper "Elements to be considered for structuring
>the IGF ".
>
>I'm quoting the relevant text from the paper followed by my comment:
>
>"The AG should act as a supporting mechanism to
>the organization, procedure and conduct of
>business at the IGF; "
>
>comment: I believe the AG should be responsible
>for implementing the suggestions/recommendations
>of all stakeholders as expressed in public
>consultations (meetings and other calls for
>contributions etc.) regarding the organization,
>procedure and conduct of business of the IGF on
>an ongoing basis. I don't understand what
>"supporting mechanism" means. Saying "at the IGF"
>suggests to me that we would be discussing an
>annual meeting and meeting only, not a process. I
>think we should consider the IGF an ongoing
>process of dialogue. Need to be careful the AG
>does not become an executive, but interprets and
>implements in good faith and in a transparent and
>open manner what we receive from stakeholders.
>
>
>"The AG should have no more than _____ members"
>
>comment: Ideally the number should be quite
>small, but I think diversity requirements will
>force the AG to remain around the current number.
>48 is divisible by four.
>
>
>"AG members should be appointed by and are
>accountable to their respective stakeholder
>group;"
>
>comment: I am uncomfortable with this.  I don't
>see how I could be accountable to global civil
>society (nor how any government member, for
>example, could be accountable to all
>governments.)  I see my role as acting as a
>connector between CS organizations and the
>advisory group.  I will do my best to represent
>what I understand to be principles and positions
>I believe to be important to global civil
>society, but I cannot see a way for us to
>realistically be accountable to our respective
>stakeholder groups.
>
>I'm concerned this notion of accountability could
>only be achieved by adopting separated processes
>in which the four major stakeholder groupings
>would reach agreement on issues and bring them to
>the advisory group.  i.e. each would hold its own
>consultations, come to agreement on positions,
>and then enter into some discussion or
>negotiation with the other groups once in the AG
>setting.  Sounds a bit like a Bureau.
>
>
>"Each stakeholder group shall appoint their
>representatives to the AG according to its own
>procedure, which should be transparent,
>democratic and inclusive; "
>
>comment: How many? Should the four groups appoint
>equal numbers? If not why not? (Noting government
>members are the largest grouping in the current
>arrangement.)
>
>As I think was mentioned during the open
>consultation on Monday, a problem with this
>suggestion is there is no way to achieve overall
>balance of the AG if each group appoints members
>independently.  We need diversity of geography,
>gender, and expertise (by expertise I mean in
>terms of subject and also in the sub-sectors of
>our respective stakeholder groups.)
>
>
>"Balanced regional representation should be
>observed by each stakeholder group, when rotating
>its representatives;"
>
>comment: Regional representation is not the only
>factor.  Members need to have different subject
>matter expertise: for example some of us know
>more about access (issues and people) and others
>more about critical Internet resources.
>Membership needs to be finely balanced across all
>stakeholder groups.
>
>
>"Gender balance should be sought."
>
>comment: Suggest that in the spirit of the WSIS
>documents and accepted good practise, Gender
>balance should be required. An expert on Gender
>and ICT would be a welcome addition to the
>chair's advisor group(s), the Brazilian groups
>seems particularly male :-)
>
>
>"The AG should be co-chaired by one
>representative appointed by the UN
>Secretary-General and one representative
>appointed by the host country;"
>
>comment: I think the role of the host country
>representative co-chair to be defined, why it is
>necessary explained (I mean no disrespect to Mr.
>Vianna, but as we have discussed the importance
>of transparency it seems a good idea to explain
>this important change.) The Secretary-General's
>appointee would logically be responsible for
>overall convening of the meeting, while it would
>make sense for the local host appointee to be
>oriented to logistical matters. I do not mean to
>suggest a strict division of labor, but a
>tendency.
>
>
>"At the invitation of the AG, non-members should
>participate at AG meetings as observers;"
>
>comment: How will this be achieved?  Consensus of
>all AG members?  A vote (two third agreement?) If
>a way to implement this suggestion can be agreed
>then it would need to be done well in advance so
>people are able to plan travel to the meetings so
>as not to disadvantage those who are not based
>locally (i.e. stakeholders from developing
>nations in particular.)
>
>
>"The AG should work on an intersessional basis, as deemed necessary;"
>
>comment: I don't understand why it is necessary to say this.
>
>"The AG should publish its proceedings and decisions."
>
>comment: this seems contrary to what I thought we
>had agreed on Tuesday.  Rather than "publish its
>proceedings and decisions" I suggest the
>secretariat should publish a summary of
>discussions of AG meetings.
>
>Hope this helps, and apologies for this rather rushed response to the paper.
>
>I will try to send comments on the other paper "A
>³package² deal for Rio" later.  But one
>observation on "substance" is to note the
>increased emphasis on Access, and discussion of
>critical Internet resources consistent with WSIS
>principles seems a departure from where I thought
>we were headed with the session? And I don't
>remember we agreed on a session on the future of
>the IGF structure etc, though the civil society
>Internet Governance Caucus is leading
>organization of a workshop on the IGF mandate and
>would like to see some discussion on this in a
>main session.
>
>Best,
>
>Adam
>



>Best
>
>Bertrand
>
>On 9/6/07, Avri Doria <<mailto:avri at acm.org>avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>hi,
>
>There is an update to the IGF page.  Specifically it includes:
>
>- Updated program - 
><http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/>http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/
>DraftProgramme.06.09.2007.rtf
>
>- Report on AG meeting - 
><http://www.intgovforum.org/Summary.AG>http://www.intgovforum.org/Summary.AG.
>05.09.07.rtf
>
>Note on the report - it includes a link to 2 papers submitted by Mr
>Everton Lucero  in
>his role as an adviser to the Host Country Co-Chair.
>
>a.
>in my role as occasional consultant to the IGF secretariat
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
><mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> 
><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>
>--
>____________________
>Bertrand de La Chapelle
>
>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir 
>les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
>("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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