[governance] main themes: 4. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance

Thu Feb 21 12:04:16 EST 2008

Colleagues,

As previously I come here not to praise....

I don't find anything objectionable in Bill/Parminder's phrasing re: #4
below...

However, in the interests of avoiding mission creep and in CS solidarity I'm
attaching a draft document that I've been responsible for preparing for the
CS contribution in advance of the OECD Ministerial in Seoul in June.

This document deals with "ICT4D" issues and is meant to be somewhat
comprehensive with respect to those issues from a CS perspective.  Comments
and suggestions are welcomed.  (They could be addressed to me directly
(probably better off line) or added to the wiki
<http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org> http://wiki.thepublicvoice.org .  This
document is part of one chapter in the broader statement that is being put
together by Katitza Rodriguez of Public Voices.)

I'm sending this to this list for two reasons... One to get expert feedback
and content/referencing additions/suggestions (please!) but also to do a bit
of boundary maintenance.

By my estimation, assuming that the attached paper #1.3 is somewhere in the
ballpark with respect to issues of concern to CS in the ICT4D space then I
would guess that there is roughly at most a 20% overlap between the issues
identified in this paper and what would conceivably be of interest in an
Internet Governance perspective.

Nothing wrong with that. It makes sense for folks to deal with the issues
that they know and can comment on from a base of knowledge and experience.

The second reason is to indicate two issues:
   1. it should clearly articulated that the proposed IGF theme on the
"Development Agenda..." is both necessary and sufficient for Internet
Governance purposes that is the discussion is one concerning "A Development
Agenda for Internet Governance" rather than "An Internet Governance Agenda
for (ICT4)Development"...

The second problem that I see is that there is no forum where the other
aspects i.e. of the non-IG aspects of the Development Agenda can be
discussed in an open, participative and multistakeholder manner as per the
processes of the IGF. 

That isn't to say that the IGF should expand its mandate, as I've said so
boringly times before, the range of actors who should be involved in the
latter discussion is rather different (including and particularly from a CS
perspective) from the range of actors currently involved in the IG
discussions..

As a thought, it might be a very useful and usefully collegial initiative if
the IGC caucus were to take some initiative in stimulating the creation of a
counterpart ICT4D policy forum to operate in parallel with (and partially
contributing to) the IGF.

Best to all,

Michael Gurstein

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: February 21, 2008 3:57 AM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] main themes

On 2/21/08 12:11 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

Bill

Would it not be better to use 'Swiss gov' instead of Swiss OfCom in the
theme proposals. Makes it weightier and also more accessible to everyone.
Parminder 

---------

Good point.  Because it was OfCom specifically that offered to co-sponsor
the DA workshop in Rio (just like other ministries that have done so in
their own names for other workshops) and the new statement is signed by
OfCom I didn't differentiate, but in fact the statement is labeled "Swiss
Comments" so presumably it's ok to attribute it to the Swiss government
generally.  Also, in rushing out a text, I failed to note also the
co-sponsorship of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee; since the
Brazilian government has publicly supported the DA idea (not just in Rio,
but also in responding to a talk I gave at an UNCTAD meeting in Geneva) it
would be dumb not to flag their support and invite their comment on the
proposal.  So how about we consider the revised texts below.  Corrected a
typo as well.

BD

4. 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, the
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, and partners from other stakeholder
groups on, "Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance."  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
proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that
could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda.

5. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance

The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS
process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess,
on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet
Governance processes."  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 programmatic activity in this arena, and
hence welcomes the Swiss 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080221/391d7971/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Ch1_15 Feb 1 . -1.3 LDCs-refs-mg.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 62976 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080221/391d7971/attachment.doc>
-------------- 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