[governance] open consultations and MAG meeting

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Ian Peter wrote:
> 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.

Hi, here are some notes in addition to what Parminder wrote:

I would say that the second day was dominated by a somewhat odd 
discussion about "internationalization of CIR". Odd, because quite a few 
contributions focussed on the issue whether or not certain wordings are 
backed by the Tunis Agenda.

However, on the first day we discussed various other issues, for example 
if it makes sense to use categories such as "mature", "contenious" and 
"new" to assign specific meeting or discussion formats to the various 
topics on the IGF agenda.

Access was also subject to lengthy discussions. Many MAG members thought 
  that access should be on the agenda again, despite the fact that at 
the end of the Hyderabad meeting many access experts stated that nothing 
new  can be expected from discussing access in a broad main session 
fashion. Accordingly the question discussed in the MAG meeting was how 
we could design a main session on access in more specific terms.

While there is a general willingness to move towards action in certain 
areas, particularly those mentioned by Parminder, it is not quite clear 
what this means and I would suspect that the intention of transforming 
debate into action could lead to further controversies. Not all MAG 
members were excited about the prospect of moving beyond mere discussion.

Regarding's Ralf's question on privacy, this issue was broad up by 
several people. A general interest focussed on privacy issues relating 
to social networking. Information ownership and the right of 
informational self-determiniation were brought up several times (this 
should also be in the transcript of open consulation). Some MAG members 
thought that privacy should be discussed in the context of Internet 
security, others objected to such a framing. However, I don't recall a 
specific link between the rights and principals proposal and the issue 
of privacy.

Judging from the February meeting, I would expect a main session 
focussing on various dimensions of privacy. However, this could well 
change again at the May meeting, which should make some final decisions 
regarding the broad outline of the next IGF's agenda.

Another issue we discussed was the proposal to have a keynote speaker or 
a keynote panel who/which would be asked, for example, to create the 
bridge between the opening ceremony and the overall topic of this year's 
IGF. We couldn't really find agreement on the merits of such a keynote 
format. I am sure this will be again on the agenda of the May meeting.

jeanette

> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
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