[governance] open consultations and MAG meeting

[Parminder]

Hi All,

I do not have my notes with me and may add more points later, but 
thought will share some impressions from IGF open consultations and MAG 
meeting right away. Other who attended may add their comments.

Review of IGF Hyderabad indicated a strong desire among the participants 
that the IGF should now move on from being an IGF 101, or a IGF for 
dummies, and deal with more clearly substantive issues, with some 
possibilities of moving forward on them. This directly connects to the 
sentiment that was prevalent in the closing session of IGF Hyderabad. it 
appears that there is general agreement to take some issues that have 
greater level of agreement to 'round tables' for possible recommendation 
making. Two issues that seem to be headed in this direction are (1) 
child protection and (2) disability related access issues (these were 
mentioned in the open consultation but the proposal was developed 
further in the MAG meeting). However the final decision on either the 
round table format or the issues to be taken up has not been taken, and 
this will decided by the re-constituted MAG in May. However, it is this 
new format that mostly likely will mark the next IGF meeting.

On the WSIS mandated review of the IGF process, my impression is that it 
appears increasingly unlikely that there will be an external 
evaluation.  It seems to be mentioned less and less. However there is no 
decision on this, and this is only my impression. Others may contribute 
theirs. The meeting of IGC members during the lunch on Tuesday seemed in 
favour of seeking an quantitative analysis of the IGF meetings on 
various parametres of participation, impact/ output etc, and we can 
further develop this proposal.

Within the MAG, while there seemed to be an early willingness to move 
forward in a spirit of favoring open discussion on, what some may 
consider as, contentious topics, midway, on the second day, brakes 
seemed to got applied, and the meeting fell into a very polarized debate 
on whether 'internationalization  of IG (or CIR management)  was a  fit 
theme to discuss. This debate seemed to negate much progress on the next 
meeting's structure and agenda not only on this theme but also on 
others. The first draft of the program paper should be soon out, and it 
is important to watch out for it.

Meanwhile, the three statements developed by the IGC were read out in 
the open consultations. The proposal to make 'internet rights and 
principles' as the overall theme for the next IGF received support from 
many civil society participants. Reps from at least two governments  - 
Swiss and El Salvador - also supported this theme. This is encouraging. 
However no rep from the technical community and the private sector 
expressed support. We may need them to support this proposal. During the 
MAG however some state reps were not too keen on making the above as the 
overall theme. There was also a specific objection to using the term 
'internet rights' which may look like meaning there was a new and 
accepted category of rights. I have now, on the MAG email list, proposed 
that we may use the term 'internet and rights' or 'an rights based 
approach to IG' to address the above objection. However, we need to 
canvass more support with gov reps that may be helpful, and also seek 
the support of technical community and the private sector. If we cannot 
get this as the overall theme, we should at least seek a main session 
discussion on it.

I also proposed 'Network Neutrality' or 'principles of an open 
architecture of the Internet'. There was some support but the discussion 
did not go far. we may need to again take it up in May. There was a lot 
of discussion around privacy issues and how they should be framed for a 
discussion at the next IGF.

I also proposed that in light of broadband investments becoming a key 
part of many a 'stimulus packages' in many countries of the North, this 
issue and its overall ramifications and significance for how we may look 
at broadband more and more as a key social infrastructure, and 
investments into it from the lens of 'social overhead capital' , should 
be taken up as a key 'access' issue at the IGF. I found some key members 
supporting this idea, and I think it is an interesting one to explore 
further.

Thanks

Parminder




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090301/a57ae01e/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