[governance] IGF delhi format

[Parminder]

The draft on IGF Delhi format as it stands. (pl point out if any suggestions
are not included)

 

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. 

New Delhi IGF marks the halfway point in the IGF's mandate. It is therefore
essential that the meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF mandate. In fact
the 'stock taking and the way forward' session at Delhi could then be used
as a mid-term review of the IGF process, considering that the IGF process is
supposed to be completely reviewed at the end of a five year period. 

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. Jeremy, pl respond to Adam's observation...)

 

Participation at the IGF

 

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. 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.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080221/eb157010/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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