[governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

Sat Mar 1 03:25:16 EST 2008

On the substantive issues proposed for main sessions at Hyderabad.

One the first look none of the themes we suggested are there. But since this
is the first time IGF is going towards specific topics, we can understand
that there must have been a lot of unease among some, and effort at not
ruffling feathers etc.. So, I can still see that some of the topics we want
discussed can seem buried in the listed text.. I also understand that there
is going to be a further process of fine-tuning of these topics - and we
need to really be ready to influence that process in all ways that we can. 

Main sessions are under two overall themes

"Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion (alternate
title: Expanding the Internet)", and,  "Managing the Internet (alternate
title: Using the Internet)"

Under the "Universalization of the Internet' are listed three possible
topics of discussion 

Low cost sustainable access

:Multilingualization

:Implications for development policy

And under 'managing the Internet'

Critical Internet resources

Arrangements for Internet governance

Global cooperation for Internet security and stability

I understand that these topics will be further refined, so that we have the
opportunity to turn them towards what we want discussed. The summary does
mention that

Possible focused topics for "Critical Internet resources" include:

. Enabling growth and innovation

. Capacity building

. The role of public private partnership in managing the Internet

. Transition from IPv4 to IPv6

. Governance issues in promoting the adoption of IPv6

. Topics beyond IP addressing

Going back to the topics we suggested, 'development agenda' will have to
seek some toehold around the part on 'implications for development policy' (
I know, Bill, your take is more global institutional) . Enhanced cooperation
will have to fit into 'managing the Internet' part, and in the same topic
(probably, the sub topic - arrangements for the Internet)  the issue of
'transparency and participation' in IG institutions. Network neutrality
doesn't seem it can come in anywhere. 

There will be a lot of very hot discussions and some degree of machination
around what topics really make to the IGF form this overall canvass, and
there is a lot for all of us to do in this regard.

One can already see the battle-lines in the way the main themes and possible
alternatives are listed.

"Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion (alternate
title: Expanding the Internet)", and,  "Managing the Internet (alternate
title: Using the Internet)"

No prizes for guessing who was pushing for what.  Universalization of
Internet is the social policy language, 'how to reach the next billion' and
'expanding the Internet' are market and business sector language...
Similarly, 'managing the Internet' is a softer version of 'governance of the
Internet' and 'using the Internet' (no idea what it could mean)  is an
effort to escape discussing policy and governance angles of the Internet. 

Parminder 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:25 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Robin Gross'; 'Ian Peter'
Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

More analysis on the MAG summary report

The best part is that they have agreed to discuss focused specific issues -
I think that is a big step forward. We now have something at the IGF. Issues
can keep changing, and we can have a better set next year, till we are clear
that we need specific issues of public policy importance to discus at the
IGF. The issues chosen this year are also closer to being clear public
policy issues, so that's a great gain as well. (more comments on these
mentioned issues later)

Equally important, there is a new category of ' main workshops' that will be
linked to the main sessions, and be on topics chosen by the MAG, though
organized by different set of stakeholders. So this is the category of
workshops, as we asked for, which will be relatively tightly managed, and
along with the main session serve the purpose of giving directions to global
Internet public polices.. At some later stage a separate outcome document on
each of the choosen specific topic, though not mentioned in the present
summary, will not be a difficult next step. So, we are making progress. 

I think I read Nitin's summing up right - he seemed inclined to go towards
specific topics, but was non committal on WGs... Well, we can keep that for
the next time.. (MAG members, was there any discussion on WGs at all)

One of the biggest gains also is the acceptance to make the 'taking stock
and way forward session' as a review of IGF vis a vis its mandate

"The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an evaluation
of the IGF in regard to its mandate"

A big step forward building on IGC's workshop of the last year... I think it
is obvious that IGC will get to organize a 'main workshop' on the mandate
issue again, and that can play an important role in the evaluation of IGF in
the main session of 'taking stock and the way forward'. 

I have some comments on the specific topics as chosen by the MAG, but that
in the next email

Parminder 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:56 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Robin Gross'; 'Ian Peter'
Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

Our original draft statement did say clearly that governments are
over-represented, and that this should be corrected. But there was advice on
the list against saying so. which later extended to that we should not say
anything about any other group's representation and just say CS is
under-represented. 

Not that things would have changed if we had said so, but it is important
for CS to be upfront and say these things when the occasion arises and not
pussyfoot as we often tend to do. 

We can still write to them that gov representation is steadily climbing
though many different means, and this is  a cause of concern etc.Let them
not do anything about this, but let them know that's what we think...

Can MAG members tell us if the issue of co-chair was discussed in the MAG. 

The worst part is that where the summary talks about 50 percent gov
representation it says 

"However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50%
of its members  proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups,
would be maintained."

Note the part 'the group was informed'. what does that mean!! Who informed
the group. Rest of the summary is written in form of what the group itself
seem to have deliberated and decided. but this is about something the group
having been told  . BY WHOM

Can the MAG members who were present in Geneva shed some light on it? 

Also those among us who have been of the opinion that MAG should stay as
purely an advisory body to UN SG, and have no substantive identity /
authority of its own, would note that we can keep expecting more and more of
these diktats from unknown quarters, which none of us can ever even reach
out to, much less influence. Putting too much faith in one person, Nitin
Desai,  who as SG's Special Advisor, we may think has the greater influence
on SG's decisions has limits, and may backfire when there is a change in
guard. In any case there are many others who have great influence with SG's
office and that is showing.. 

In not calling for a more independent MAG, CS has lost a major opportunity.
Now it may be too late to even call for it. 

An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all the
energy though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times
that there is no insistence on the name 'bureau' and whatever goes with it.
So now you have your MAG which is government loaded because we ourselves
colluded in handing over all powers to the UN SG office. No point ruing it.

Parminder 

  _____  

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:38 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special advisors" are
added into the mix, there is an even higher percentage of govt
representation. For example there are 4 representatives from the Russian
govt listed as special advisors. I'm not sure why a non-host country would
need such disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go
to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good sense as to
whether such a high percentage of govt representation of the MAG is a fait
de complis or can be challenged. I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members
who were in Geneva think about this.

Thanks,

Robin

On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

The most telling point here appears to be

>However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50%
of its members

>proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be
maintained.

Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really
multistakeholder?

Ian Peter

Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd

PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000

Australia

Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

www.ianpeter.com

www.internetmark2.org

www.nethistory.info

  _____  

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org;
Openstds at ipjustice.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org;
privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org
Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva
this week is on the IGF website:

http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf

Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report.

Best,

Robin

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA

p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: 28/02/2008
12:14

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 - Release Date: 29/02/2008
08:18

____________________________________________________________

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

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA

p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080301/be0b6525/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