[governance] Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles

[Parminder]

> I think we should recommend including discussion
> of the mandate within the "Taking stock and the
> way forward" session and some associated
> workshops.  Important we start looking at what's
> been achieved and to prepare for discussion about
> the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond
> 2010.  There could be a call for workshops on
> topics from the mandate not yet addressed (or not
> the subject of other sessions) and the second in
> the "branded" series.

Yes, like other main session it should also be intensely prepared for by a
WG, and have associated set of workshops, with role and mandate of IGF
workshop as one of them. Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:42 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >Per Parminder¹s request, I¹ve drafted some
> >language on two possible main session topics.
> > In both cases, I took note of the Swiss
> >statement.  One could argue either way the
> >politics of doing that, but ultimately I thought
> >it¹s sensible to clearly make the linkage so the
> >proposals are framed in subsequent discussion as
> >a MS intervention rather than just some CS
> >thing.  If OfCom¹s not shy about supporting our
> >proposals, why should we be shy about doing the
> >same?  Also, on the WSIS principles piece, I
> >suggest narrowing the focus this time in a way
> >that makes the issues and politics more
> >manageable.  Several years of experience raising
> >this with IGF leadership and at ITU and OECD
> >meetings, etc. lead me to believe that the
> >camel¹s nose would be more less unwelcome in the
> >tent if it looks like transparency and inclusion
> >rather than ³everything should be multilateral²
> >or ³let¹s rehash WSIS² etc.
> >
> >Thoughts, suggestions, corrections of my false
> >consciousness and running dog lackey ways, etc?
> >
> >BTW re: one other point raised prior, I would
> >suggest that we not propose a main session on
> >the IGF mandate, but rather hold off for another
> >IGC workshop instead---second in a branded
> >series, the first having gone well and not led
> >the sky to fall etc.  I can¹t imagine key
> >players welcoming the possibility of a main
> >session hullabaloo on that.
> 
> 
> I think we should recommend including discussion
> of the mandate within the "Taking stock and the
> way forward" session and some associated
> workshops.  Important we start looking at what's
> been achieved and to prepare for discussion about
> the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond
> 2010.  There could be a call for workshops on
> topics from the mandate not yet addressed (or not
> the subject of other sessions) and the second in
> the "branded" series.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >
> >A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
> >
> >Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda
> >and its mandate for the IGF.  Development also
> >was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the
> >Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured
> >a main session that devoted significant, focused
> >attention to the linkages between Internet
> >governance mechanisms and development.  However,
> >at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society
> >actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of
> >Communications and other partners from all
> >stakeholder groupings on, ³Toward a Development
> >Agenda for Internet Governance.²  The workshop
> >considered the options for establishing a
> >holistic program of analysis and action that
> >would help mainstream development considerations
> >into Internet governance decision making
> >processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed
> >strong interest in further work on the topic
> >being pursued in the IGF.  Hence, we believe the
> >Development Agenda concept should be taken up in
> >a main session at New Delhi, and that this would
> >be of keen interest to a great many participants
> >there.  We also support the Swiss OfCom¹s
> >proposal to consider establishing a
> >multi-stakeholder Working Group that could
> >develop recommendations to the IGF on a
> >development agenda.
> >
> >
> >Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
> >
> >The WSIS principles hold that Internet
> >governance processes ³should be multilateral,
> >transparent and democratic, with the full
> >involvement of governments, the private sector,
> >civil society and international organizations.²
> >Governments invoked these principles throughout
> >the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda
> >mandated the IGF to, ³promote and assess, on an
> >ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles
> >in Internet Governance processes.²
> > Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any
> >follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key
> >element of its mandate.  The Internet Governance
> >Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic
> >activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the
> >Swiss OfCom¹s statement that implementation of
> >the WSIS principles should be added as a
> >cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF
> >discussions.  To help kick-start that
> >cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a
> >main session in New Delhi concentrate on two
> >WSIS principles of general applicability for
> >which progress in implementation can be most
> >readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive
> >participation.  The session could consider
> >patterns of practice across Internet governance
> >mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons
> >concerning good or best practices.
> >
> >
> >***********************************************************
> >William J. Drake
> >Director, Project on the Information
> >   Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
> >Graduate Institute of International and
> >   Development Studies
> >Geneva, Switzerland
> >william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> >***********************************************************
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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