[governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main themes
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Feb 13 06:57:30 EST 2008
Some views have been expressed on this list that repeating the same main
themes - that are just too general - will not contribute to any meaningful
impact of IGF, and will not enable it to move towards fulfilling its
mandate. (APCs statement also is against recycling the same main themes in
the plenary.) This was also accepted by the IGC when we proposed 4 new
themes during the May 2007 consultations.
I am suggesting one such main themes. Responses to this suggestion, and
other possible themes are welcome.
'Main issues for discussion at IGF New Delhi'
We are of the opinion that we should move towards taking up of more specific
issues of global Internet related public policy for discussion in the
plenaries and the associated workshops, from different speakers just making
what are often disconnected statements on diffuse and general issues that
are the subjects of the plenaries at present. A set of issues should be
chosen for the New Delhi with this spirit.
We propose that 'An assessment of the current global policy institutional
framework and mechanism for the Internet, in terms of existing and emerging
policy related challenges' (crisper title welcome) be one of the main
session themes.
IGF was borne is an context which recognized significant gaps in the global
Internet public policy framework, and one its public policy tasks has to be
a continued multi-stakeholder examination of this framework, and come out
with suggestions for evolutionary/ corrective possibilities, if any. No body
is making such an assessment at present at a time when new challenges in the
area of global Internet public policy keep emerging. IGF is an important
responsibility of doing this as per its mandate.
We will like specific workshops (of type A) devoted to examining the issue
of ensuring transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder-ism in all
for a involved in Internet governance and another one devoted to developing
a code for public participation in all such fora (Swiss and APC
contributions mention these)
Both these workshops can feed into the main session on 'assessment of the
current global policy institutional framework' proposed above
(ends)
Parminder
_____________________________________________
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:02 PM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: RE: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - process
> I am starting two discussion threads - this one for
>
> (1) discussing various issues with regard to, and (2) seek a common
> position
> on, the IGF secretariat's call seeking comments on how did Rio go, and
> what
> should change for New Delhi.
This is for a second (possible) caucus statement on comments on Rio and
suggestions for Delhi.
Some discussion on these issues has already started on this list in the
'reconstituting MAG' thread, and the 'ICANN Delhi, Workshop....' thread, and
I will also pull together material from these.
You may like to see APC's and Swiss govs contributions in this regard at
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_General_2008.html ,. (Also see
Jeremy's contribution posted at
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/feedback-for-taking-stock-of-rio ) All
these makee some very important suggestions, which we can consider.
I will list some important issues that may be highlighted (again very rough
points). We should keep our intervention short and incisive and therefore
raise only those issues which we see as really and centrally important.
Instead of making two sections on comments on Rio and suggestions for Delhi,
we will go by different issues, and mention both at the same place.
(I will first put some text of appreciation for the hosts, and all
facilities etc. Anyone with any specific suggestion can give inputs.)
I think the main issue is about the huge number of workshops, and the thin
attendance at the plenaries which puts the significance of IGF as ONE forum
out of focus.
We should suggest fewer and more structured workshops, with more vigorous
merging of workshops. (the Swiss doc also suggests this.) But if this
conflicts with the objective of many participants being allowed to use the
IGF space for their workshops/ activities, we can use a format of two kinds
of workshops. Type A which are strongly linked with the plenaries, and are
few in number, and type B where are more open-ended, and about these MAG
should be more liberal on the numbers (limited only by the logistics issue).
(I don't want to put hierarchies here - but that's the only solution to
reconcile opposing imperatives of a meaningful cohesiveness on one hand, and
diversity and openness of the forum on the other.) I think some such
separation of types of workshops was tried in Rio, or in the run up to it,
but it didn't really work out. We can try it this time, with more time for
preparation.
In merging workshops, all kinds of diversities - geo-political, of special
interests, of range of views, etc. - must be kept in mind. The number of
workshop that any one group is able to hold will accordingly be limited (at
least for type A). Within each of these workshops effort should be made to
promote a meaningful dialogue and discussion across a range of views, and
not just a futile interaction among the converted.
The central part of the IGF, type A workshops and plenaries should be
arranged tightly with common themes, with the purpose of meaningful
outcomes. These outcomes should be oriented towards the IGF's mandate in
terms of global Internet public policy issues. There should be no overlap
between plenaries and these workshops, though some of these workshops can be
held simultaneously.
Working Groups should be set up to both prepare for these subject based
plenaries and their associated workshops (working with their sponsors)and to
synthesize their outcomes in a more focused and output oriented way, than
just a chair's summary as at present along with disparate unconnected
individual workshop report (see Swiss contribution, they ask for all these.
Also see APC's contribution).
What we are trying to do here is to super-impose an architecture of a more
organized and output-oriented aspect of IGF over the existing open town hall
architecture, without either aspect constraining the possibilities and
functioning of the other aspect. In fact, the combined architecture is meant
to allow the two aspects to be able to draw a lot of substance and strength
from each other. This is to enable IGF to meet all the requirements of its
Tunis Agenda.
Dynamic coalition should also be better structured in the IGF's main
processes (suggestions invited for this...)
The preparations for the Delhi meet should start really early to give
ourselves adequate time to make it a major improvement over Rio and Athens,
each of which, we do acknowledge had their distinctive positive features.
(the process part of the statements ends, I am separately posting some main
themes related suggestions)
Parminder
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:27 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Subject: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi
>
>
> >Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for
> >taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on
> >the renewal of the Advisory Group (see >
> http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0)
> > ? Having just returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own
> >responses in any case, but I would love to see something from the IGC
> >(and would be happy to contribute to it, though it's more appropriate
> >for you to coordinate).
>
>
> Thanks Jeremy for alerting us to this.
>
> I am starting two discussion threads - this one for
>
> (1) discussing various issues with regard to, and (2) seek a common
> position
> on, the IGF secretariat's call seeking comments on how did Rio go, and
> what
> should change for New Delhi. Pl see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php.
>
> And another thread separately with regard to the issue of rotation of
> members of the MAG.
>
> From the response we get on these two threads we will take a call if a
> consensus statement for each of above can be proposed to the list.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 2:36 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Taking Stock of Rio - IGC submission?
>
> Parminder and Vittorio, will the IGC be preparing a submission for
> taking stock of Rio (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Q2007.php), or on
> the renewal of the Advisory Group (see
> http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0)
> ? Having just returned to civilisation I'll be preparing my own
> responses in any case, but I would love to see something from the IGC
> (and would be happy to contribute to it, though it's more appropriate
> for you to coordinate).
>
> All the best.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 10050 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080213/48635b8f/attachment.bin>
More information about the Governance
mailing list