for Karen [Fwd: RE: [governance] IGF delhi format]

[Jeanette Hofmann]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: [governance] IGF delhi format
Date: 	Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:19:43 +0530
From: 	Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: 	governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: 	<governance at lists.cpsr.org>



*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.

* *



____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080222/a9c8317c/attachment.txt>