[governance] karenb comments: IGC statements
karen banks
karenb at gn.apc.org
Sat Feb 23 08:56:23 EST 2008
dear all
i haven't had time to do more than read through the threads in
response to the statements, and read through what i think are last
versions of statements.
A file is attached with all 3 statements together (simply offered as
i put it together for my own purposes), gathered together from the
threads today..
i did a search and replace on (new) delhi and delhi (careful when you
do this as you'll catch one legitimate new delhi in relation to the
comment about nitin desai and the recent new delhi meeting) - and
replaced with hyderabad
APC won't be submitting written statements apart from the report and
recommendations on access i've already posted here- but that
statement does contains one recommendation that the caucus statement
also advocates - that of working groups - and specifically, in
relation to access.
The swiss are proposing a working group on a development agenda for
IG (which the caucus is supporting) - and in general, apc will
support the modality of working groups, as part of a process, that
supports thematic work in the IGF - as outlined in our statement at
the end of the Rio IGF (extract below)
In addition to the general proposal, we will try to provide more
detail as to how WGs might work in practice, how they could be
convened and operate - working with the access WG as a prototype
3. Convening of "IGF working groups" (full statement at :
http://intgovforum.org/rio_reports/apc_statement_igf2007_EN.pdf)
APC recommends that the IGF uses the format of the Working Group on
Internet Governance (WGIG, established during the World Summit on the
Information Society), or bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) to convene working groups to address complex issues that
emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals
with the necessary expertise and drawn from different stakeholder
groups. These groups can then engage specific issues in greater
depth, and, if they feel it is required, develop recommendations that
can be communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed
to specific institutions.
These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed
recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions
for action from the individuals in the working group.
These working groups have a different role from the self-organised
dynamic coalitions which we believe should continue. Dynamic
coalitions have a broader mandate and are informal in nature. We see
IGF working groups as differing from dynamic coalitions in that they
should particular challenges rather than a general issue area. They
will also have a degree of accountability and an obligation to report
that dynamic coalitions do not have.
Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups on
the following issues might be valuable:
* Working group on self and co-regulation in internet governance
* Working group on business models for access
* Working group on a development agenda for internet governance.
The need for working groups will only be apparent when the event
report has been finalised. We propose that the IGF secretariat and
the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) consider this proposal at that time.
parminder - you asked about how to get comments in on some kind of
'code of participation in IG processes' - you're referring to the
press release from APC, CoE and UNECE last year?
>>>>The Council of Europe and the Association for Progressive
>>>>Communications propose a code for public participation in Internet governance
>>>>
>>>>RIO de JANEIRO -- Intergovernmental and civil society
>>>>organisations propose a self-regulatory mechanism to foster
>>>>participation, access to information and transparency in Internet
>>>>governance at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de
>>>>Janeiro on 12 November 2007.
full statement at: http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569
we are moving ahead with this.. and anriette will be able to update
people in geneva.. but if this some thing the caucus would like to
support in principle (and get involved in in practice between now and
IGF Hyderabad) then maybe you can simply make a verbal intervention
to support the proposal, or express interest in the proposal, at the
appropriate time..
=====
in a verbal intervention, we will also comment on themes - supporting
the themes of transparency and accountability and sustainable
development and IG, amongst others, and comments on the
reconstitution of the MAG, which wil largely echo and support the
caucus statement on this (and also noted in our statement last year)
- in fact, pretty ,much all of the proposals from our statement last
year still stand..
a few brief comments on the caucus statements
I: themes - is the caucus not now supporting the IISD proposal for a
main theme of sustainable development and internet governance?
II: formats - no comments, largely support
III: MAG - what about the question of continuity of the chair? i
thought i saw this somewhere, but maybe not in the caucus statement?
karen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080223/771bd9f0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IG Caucus Statements for IGF Consultation.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 112128 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080223/771bd9f0/attachment.obj>
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list