[governance] IGC statements

[Parminder]

We will have to change Delhi to Hyderabad everywhere. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 3:20 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the statement on IGF format for Delhi..
> 
> With the following changes (done in a bit of hurry, so pl correct as
> needed.
> Will also correct language myself)
> 
> Added
> 
> "To enable proper preparation for Delhi IGF, a call for workshops should
> be
> given out as soon as possible. This will also require early decision on
> main
> session themes. Postponing these crucial activities will leave us with
> inadequate time to make all the needed preparations for the IGF, New
> Delhi.
> This will not allow us to move ahead on further achievement of the full
> potential of the IGF, that we all desire to do."
> 
> Jeremy, as per Adam's suggestion, I am replacing reference to speed
> dialogue
> and instead putting this
> 
> " We should explore innovative methods within the IGF to improve the
> active
> participation in the IGF proceedings of all those attend the IGF."
> 
> In the section on participation,
> 
> and then move on the issue of those who cant participate. And as per
> Izumi's
> email I have drafted and included some text
> 
> " As the IGF goes to the South Asian region which is home to more than
> half
> the world's poor, special focus needs to be given to realizing the vision
> of
> an internet for everyone. This first of all requires obtaining the
> participation of disadvantaged groups and communities in the governance of
> the Internet. Delhi IGF should take all possible measures to make outreach
> to and include these groups in the IGF meeting. This can be done by
> galvanizing the local civil society around the Delhi IGF meeting. We
> welcome
> the call given by Nitin Desai to do so, in the recent ICANN meeting at New
> Delhi."
> 
> I have to confirm this Nitin part, but I remember he said so. I think it
> is
> imp that global CS points to the poverty aspect of India/ S Asia when gov
> may want IGF participants to focus on its IT part.
> 
> 
> Lastly, I want to recommend parts of the Swiss gov doc where it
> corresponds
> to suggestions made by us.
> 
> 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.
> 
> First of all, an overarching principle of IGF's work should be of dealing
> primarily with IG issues, and not generally
> 
>  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.
> 
> 
> To enable proper preparation for Delhi IGF, a call for workshops should be
> given out as soon as possible. This will also require early decision on
> main
> session themes. Postponing these crucial activities will leave us with
> inadequate time to make all the needed preparations for the IGF, New
> Delhi.
> This will not allow us to move ahead on further achievement of the full
> potential of the IGF, that we all desire to see.
> 
> *Participation at the IGF*
> 
> We should explore innovative methods within the IGF to improve the active
> participation in the IGF proceedings of all those attend 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.
> 
> As the IGF goes to the South Asian region which is home to more than half
> the world's poor, special focus needs to be given to realizing the vision
> of
> an internet for everyone. This first of all requires obtaining the
> participation of disadvantaged groups and communities in the governance of
> the Internet. Delhi IGF should take all possible measures to make outreach
> to and include these groups in the IGF meeting. This can be done by
> galvanizing the local civil society around the Delhi IGF meeting. We
> welcome
> the call given by Nitin Desai to do so, in the recent ICANN meeting at New
> Delhi.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 2:18 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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