[governance] IGF delhi format

[Parminder]

> Agree with the statement, and particularly with
> Mereym's comment that discussions must be related
> to "global Internet governance".  It's in the
> statement but should be emphasized (move it up.)

This statement is more about the format, and there is another one about thematic focus, where we do emphasize the IG focus part. To quote from the 'main themes' draft, "the main sessions should address specific public policy issues that are considered most important in the current global context".

Even in the IGF format draft we say in para 2 dealing with 'town hall' aspect - " providing an open space for discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all stakeholders". And ten under the open workshops we restate very pointedly as point 2. I think we are making the point repeatedly and clearly.

> 
> I would add that the New Delhi IGF marks the
> halfway point in the IGF's mandate. Essential the
> meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate
> (main sessions and workshops as the statement
> suggests.) Stock taking and the way forward could
> then be used as a mid-term review where we begin
> considering whether the IGF should continue after
> 2010, under what conditions (if any etc) (TA para
> 76).

OK
> 
> About the multi-stakeholder organization of
> workshops -- always intended to be a principle
> not a rule.  And as the caucus / civil society
> seems to have followed the principle better than
> most, I don't think we need to worry too much.  I
> would delete from "the later criterion..." to the
> end of the paragraph.  I think over emphasizing
> this might have a negative effect on CS.

That comes for the experience of many CS guys trying to hold workshops and not being able to get internet organization, private sector, and govs to partner... It happened with IGC's own workshop, with workshops ITfC tried to organize, and, I understand, even with IGP.... The 'later criterion....' part addresses this real felt problem. 

> 
> There was still too much duplication of subjects
> of workshops in Rio.  If there were more time to
> organize things then all proposing workshops
> could be asked to work with others proposing
> similar themes to refine and merge their
> proposals (perhaps in working groups?)  I like to
> see something like this in the caucus statement,
> and that an initial call for workshop proposals
> should be made shortly after the February
> consultation.

I will add about the call after feb consultation. I prefer more work on merging done in temr sof thematic workshop rather the open ones...ill strengthen this point. 
> 
> About speed dialogue -- can we recommend that the
> IGF try innovative means of discussion rather
> than referring to speed dialogue specifically.

I myself am not sure about speed dialogue process in  a large main session setting. Jeremy, pl comment on this. 

> 
> About participation.  For what it's worth, more
> CS participants in Athens and Rio than other
> stakeholder groups. "lopsided" in the opening
> sentence reads oddly (to me).  
CS category is not the only one we spek about. It was lopsided in terms of representation form developing countries. This is recognized in official IGF docs, and I think a valid point  to make. 
But I can remove it and start it as suggested by you below. 

Parminder 

Suggest deleting
> that sentence, and the paragraph could begin with
> 
> It is important to improve the participation of
> currently excluded and under represented groups
> in both the IGF's public consultations and the
> annual meetings.  (and keep the rest.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> >I am changing the subject to ŒIGF Delhi format¹.
> >Two other statements are being considered under
> >the head Œmain themes¹ and Œreconstituting MAG¹
> >
> >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 IGF¹s 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 IGF¹s 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 daysŠ and I think it fits well.
> >The other aspect is titled as ŒIGF as Providing
> >Directions to Global Public Policy on Internet¹.
> >
> >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 Caucus¹s 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 Œdo not often Œtalk¹ to each other¹.
> >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 one¹s 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)   Sponsor¹s 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 IGF¹s 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
> >partŠ..)
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.odt (    /    )
> (0050DA21)
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF Delhi format.doc (WDBN/«IC»)
> (0050DA22)
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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