[governance] open consultations and MAG meeting

[Ian Peter]

Thanks Parminder for an excellent summary. Although I wasn't present at the
MAG part of proceedings I did hear afterwards that it was dominated, as you
say, by a debate on "internationalization of CIR" which many found either
confusing or annoying.

 

On the open consultations - the only thing I would add to was the rather
interesting discussion on defining various issues according to their level
of maturity, and that the level of maturity might help determine the format
of the treatment of these issues - eg more mature issues would be treated in
different formats. I am not sure how agreement on an issues matrix would
ever be reached, but the concept was interesting.

 

Also I wonder if anyone has further thoughts on the review (or consultation,
or whatever process). I agree that the ground seemed to shift here a little
- wheras the topic in the agenda was a review, it was later pointed out that
in fact no review was called for, only a consultation with forum
participants. It also became clear - particularly after China's comments -
that the decision is for the Secretary General and probably the UN  General
Assembly, which might of course be taken with consideration to factors other
than those raised by IGF. While it was clear that the IGF Forum participants
would generally favour continuance, and that would include the parts of
governments who attend IGF, other submissions to the General Assembly may
carry different observations or recommendations and the government reps who
go to GA might not even know the people who attend IGF or their opinions on
the matter.

 

So this process needs careful watching as we go forward. As we agreed at our
meeting, a prime task for us over coming months is to monitor developments
in this area and react accordingly.

 

One small extra addition - at our meeting of members present, we agreed to
endorse Wolfgang, Bill Drake, and the APC representative as our
representatives for the ITU Policy Forum if they are attending. That gives
us formal involvement.

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

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

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: 01 March 2009 22:11
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] open consultations and MAG meeting

 

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/20090302/c9242d29/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