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

[William Drake]

Hi Michael,

Not to worry, as I told you off line, there is absolutely no interest in
mission creeping into ICT4D.  In fact, this was made explicit in the Rio WS
description, in the WS itself, and in the current main session proposal.
This is about IG per se.  While I¹ve not detected any confusion on the point
in many conversations with participants, sure, the point can be underscored
in the consultation.

Best,

Bill


On 2/21/08 6:04 PM, "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 ŒSwiss gov¹ 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 didn¹t differentiate, but in fact the statement  is labeled ³Swiss
>> Comments² so presumably it¹s 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, 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 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 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 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/20080222/32b33c2d/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