[governance] karenb comments: IGC statements

Sat Feb 23 15:18:40 EST 2008

Karen, Thanks a lot for putting together the draft statements. It is very
helpful at a time I am not able to give a lot of attention to this task. 

Some quick responses to your queries.

>I: themes - is the caucus not now supporting the IISD proposal for a main
theme of sustainable development and internet governance?

There has been no discussion on it, so we at the moment have no formal
position on it. 

>III: MAG - what about the question of continuity of the chair? i thought i
saw this somewhere, but maybe not in the caucus statement?

It has been in earlier caucus statements, last year. I can add a line. Does
anyone have any reservations to adding - The caucus supports the
continuation of Nitin Desai as the Chair of the MAG. He has played a stellar
role in guiding the MAG and the IGF through difficult formative times.  

Or any alternative text..

Parminder 

  _____  

From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] 
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:26 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] karenb comments: IGC statements

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: 

1.	Working group on self and co-regulation in internet governance 
2.	Working group on business models for access 
3.	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/20080224/579f4d85/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