[governance] IGF delhi format

[Parminder]

I know all this is a bit confusing but the sentence you quote is for the 'main themes' draft and not the IGF delhi format draft. 

But you can formulate the sentence and I will put it in the main themes draft. 


Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:34 PM
> To: Peake, Adam; Governance; Singh, Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF delhi format
> Importance: High
> 
> Agree.  Per previous, this should be positioned as an overarching
> principle
> relevant to all IGF activities and should placed up front rather than
> buried
> in relation only to workshops.  I'd suggest in the second paragraph, as a
> lead in to your sentence, "the plenaries [again, should call these main
> sessions] should address specific public policy issues that are considered
> most important in the current global context," which flows from the
> principle.
> 
> BD
> 
> On 2/20/08 12:57 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> > 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.)
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > About speed dialogue -- can we recommend that the
> > IGF try innovative means of discussion rather
> > than referring to speed dialogue specifically.
> >
> > 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).  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