[governance] IGF delhi format

Wed Feb 20 04:57:31 EST 2008

Hi Parminder et al.

I support this statement. I do regret that we haven't been  
collectively able to agree on one of the two options, and that, as a  
result, the IGC statement looks more like an external analysis than a  
true stakeholder view.
But as you said we cannot achieve more as for now.
One suggestion: as it's not quite clear currently, specially when  
describing the 'town hall' aspect, we should probably add somewhere a  
general sentence reaffirming that, whatever the option, discussions  
should be restricted to matter related to global internet governance,  
and not expand to any "ICT and society" issue. Isn't this the least  
minimum we can agree on?
Thanks for your hard work on this, as well as on other IGC statements.
Best,
Meryem

Le 20 févr. 08 à 08:27, Parminder a écrit :

> I am changing the subject to ‘IGF Delhi format’. Two other  
> statements are being considered under the head ‘main themes’ and  
> ‘reconstituting MAG’
>
>
>
> Pl find enclosed a draft for caucus statement on the issue of Delhi  
> IGF format.
>
>
>
> I think there is a non-ending debate between those who want to  
> improve IGF’s effectiveness in giving public policy directions, and  
> those who want to encourage it as an open space for dialogue.  
> Arguments given by either side are heard by the other as reducing  
> IGFs effectiveness in the aspect they hold dearer. So, I though it  
> is best to divide IGF’s mandate, functions and needed activities in  
> two parts – accepting the important of both, and making them (to  
> attempting to make them) mutually non-threatening.
>
>
>
> I have used the open town hall meeting as the descriptive term for  
> the open policy dialogue function because the MAG Chair Nitin Desai  
> often uses it now a days… and I think it fits well. The other  
> aspect is titled as ‘IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public  
> Policy on Internet’.
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> PS: we have only today and tomorrow, to give comments (on all three  
> statements) and integrate them into possible final drafts for  
> seeking rough consensus. I had earlier put these points out – both  
> in a descriptive fashion, and as 5 specific points - for this  
> statement, but I understand it is difficult to keep track to all  
> this activity on the list along with our other works. But can you  
> all please make up in the next two days. Thanks.
>
>
>
> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s input for the format for  
> IGF, Delhi
>
> With two years of experience behind us, it is a good time to assess  
> how well IGF is fulfilling its Tunis Agenda mandate, and make  
> improvements as necessary to the format and processes of IGF.
>
> We are of the opinion that the functions that IGF is supposed to  
> carry out can be put into two broad categories: One is of providing  
> an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues  
> regarding the Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia,  
> encouraging a closer interactions between stakeholder and groups  
> who ‘do not often ‘talk’ to each other’. The second set of mandates  
> and functions can be clubbed in the category of providing some  
> relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global  
> public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in terms of  
> ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional  
> framework in this area.
>
> The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both  
> these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being  
> achieved, and IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a  
> town hall meeting where anyone can come and voice one’s opinion and  
> concerns.  However, the requirements for the purpose two listed  
> above – that of some clear contribution to the global public policy  
> arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements for the  
> next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting  
> character.
>
> IGF as an Open Town Hall Meeting
>
> To fulfill this aspect of the IGF, as we mentioned, we think we are  
> making good progress. We are of the view that we should allow as  
> many open workshops as possible, subject only to the limitations of  
> the logistics. In fact, we should encourage connected events on the  
> sidelines of the IGF as well, some of which were held  around IGF,  
> Rio.
>
> The process of selection of open workshops should, inter alia,  
> involve the criteria of
>
> (1)   Sponsor’s readiness to structure the workshops as a space of  
> open dialogue and not just one-sided advocacy. The multi  
> stakeholder criteria should be seen more in terms of the expressed  
> willingness of the sponsors to invite different stakeholders, and  
> those with different points of views, to participate as panelists  
> rather than in the sponsorship of the workshops. The later  
> criterion leads to the possibility of some stakeholders, especially  
> those with a relatively tightly organized and relatively monolithic  
> structure and policy/ political approach, to veto some subjects.  
> And the variety sought should be more in terms of different points  
> of views, rather than just different stakeholders, because it is  
> possible to gather a panel of different stakeholders with a narrow  
> range of views on a particular subject.
>
> (2)   Workshops themes staying, as closely as possible, within  
> IGF’s broad mandate of dealing with specifically IG issue, that are  
> global, and have some relation to public policy arena. Specific  
> overall thematic emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be indicated.
>
> IGF as Providing Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet
>
>
>
> There is a general impression that more can be done to ensure that  
> the IGF fulfills its mandate of providing directions to global  
> public policy on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its TA  
> mandate. The main sessions should the focal spaces for fulfilling  
> these sets of objectives. There was a general impression among  
> those who attended Athens and Rio meetings that the main sessions  
> could be made more compelling and productive. We did see attendance  
> at these sessions shriveling off, from Athens to Rio, and within  
> Rio, from day one onwards.
>
>
>
> We think that the main sessions should be focused on specific  
> issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather  
> than on more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet  
> environment generally. These specific issues should be framed, and  
> prepared for, well in advance. We are separately suggesting a  
> couple of such specific issues that can be dealt with by the main  
> session at Delhi.
>
>
>
> The main session can be made more productive and fruitful by
>
>
>
> (1)   Having a couple of thematic workshops connected with, and  
> feeding into, each of the main sessions. There should be a limited  
> number of these thematic workshops, with a vigorous effort to merge  
> proposals for such workshops in a manner that preserves diversities  
> of geo-politics, special interests and different viewpoint, but  
> retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of the main  
> sessions.
>
>
>
> (2)   Thematic workshops should not overlap with the main sessions.
>
>
>
> (3)   Using Working Groups to intensively prepare for each of these  
> sessions, and the connected workshops. These working groups should  
> also synthesis some kind of an outcome documents on each theme,  
> taking from the discussions at the main sessions and the connected  
> workshops. These working groups could consist of members of the MAG  
> plus some other experts and stakeholders.
>
>
>
> Dynamic coalitions (DC) too have a great potential to increase the  
> effectiveness of the IGF. There should be greater clarity on the  
> formal integration of DCs into the overall IGF structure. Dynamic  
> coalition pertaining to the chosen subject for a main session  
> should be involved in the preparations for the session. They must  
> also be able to report back on their activities in such a main  
> session.
>
>
>
> (Text of speed dialogue or similar process suggested by Jeremy to  
> come here, or in the next part…..)
>
>
>
> Participation at the IGF
>
>
>
> It has often been noted that participation in the IGF is very  
> lopsided. In order to build the legitimacy of the IGF, it is  
> important to improve the participation of currently excluded  
> groups. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential  
> participants from developing and least developed countries. There  
> is also a lot of scope for improving participation through online  
> means, which should be fully explored. However this improvement of  
> online participation cannot fill in for greater face to face  
> participation of currently under-represented groups.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <IGF Delhi format.odt><IGF Delhi format.doc>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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