[governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme

[Parminder]

The final text for IGC's input doc to September consultations  now is as
follows. Unless some significant opposition to it is revised, it will be
sent to the secretariat on IGC's behalf sometime tomorrow. 

The only difference from the text circulated earlier is the deletion of the
term 'evaluation'. 
Thanks 

Parminder 

____________

(1)  The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter
sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a core
theme of the IGF".  The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a
central theme of the IGF process.

2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this
session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main
session workshops and debates.  In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda,

     "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the
continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants,
within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN
Membership in this regard."

it is important that a review  [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF begins
promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent consultative
process involving all stakeholders.

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The
role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with the
same title at IGF, Hyderabad,
<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71> and we would
be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the organizing
of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in
the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done in
collaboration with some workshop organizers.  We would be pleased to work
with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the
process of review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF. It is important that
a review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF begins promptly and be
conducted in an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all
stakeholders.


(3)  The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up
the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has been
very unclear.  How were some workshops accepted in these working groups and
some not?  What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced
representation of views is present in each of the working groups organizing
the main session workshops?

The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more
transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be assured
that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal
opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session
workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.)

(4) Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as
a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this issue is
not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know about the
funding support available for participation of civil society  from
developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be too
late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that
immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it.

 
Thank you,

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 1:18 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; Parminder;
> gurstein at gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad
> programme
> 
> Then let's drop evaluation.  Michael has related concerns.
> 
> So point 2 would read:
> 
> 
> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this
> session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main
> session workshops and debates.  In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda,
> 
>      "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of
> the
> continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants,
> within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN
> Membership in this regard."
> 
> it is important that a review  [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF
> begins promptly and be conducted in an inclusive and transparent
> consultative process involving all stakeholders.
> 
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The
> role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with
> the
> same title at IGF, Hyderabad,
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71> and we
> would
> be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the
> organizing
> of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in
> the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done
> in
> collaboration with some workshop organizers.  We would be pleased to work
> with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the
> process of review [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF. It is
> important that a review
> [and evaluation DELETED] of the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an
> inclusive and transparent consultative process involving all stakeholders.
> 
> 
> Parminder can correct me if I'm wrong (it's late). But I think this
> is all wordsmithing and "friendly amendments" and should not delay
> sending before the 15th.
> 
> best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> At 3:33 PM -0400 8/13/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >I'm willing to accept Adam's reasonable amendment. Would prefer that the
> >word "evaluation" be struck from it but unless many others concur it's
> >not a show-stopper for me.
> >
> >Milton Mueller
> >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> >------------------------------
> >Internet Governance Project:
> >http://internetgovernance.org
> >
> >
> >>
> >>  "it is important that a review and evaluation of
> >>  the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an
> >>  inclusive and transparent consultative process
> >>  involving all stakeholders"
> >>
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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