[governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday

[Baudouin SCHOMBE]

a) Need for "enhanced"  (not degraded) multistakeholder approach
<I plan to put answers to the following questions – you provide, hopefully>

- Why multistakeholder so important?
*
**1. The implementation of the Geneva Plan of Action requires a working
synergybetween all actors in the country: governments, public sectors, civil
society, international organizations, regional and subregional agencies and
the UN system, some were designated as coordinators for the implementation
of the chapters of this action plan.
2.The exponential growth of digital technology requires that there be
a constant
and regular dialogue between all these actors to capitalize on experience
andminimize the negative use of this technology.
3.The objectives stipulated in the processes of the World Summit on
theInformation
Society are the result of a long international cooperation and who wanted that
digital technology can be a corrective to all development programsthat have
not have succeeded* *.
*
- What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet
governance itself and discussing about Internet governance such as
CSTD IGF WG

*-the issues debated since the first meeting of the IGF prove sufficiently
that the Geneva Action Plan completed by the Tunis Agenda has not yet
reached 50% of its achievements, more specifically, in countries development.
African governments have yet to master these processes and still can not
properly bind digital technology and development. **MSH approach fills many
gaps in control, communication and the realization of this technology, in
particular, the chapters 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10 RAP Geneva.*

- What are the specific risks or problems of excluding
non-governmental actors in the process

*-**The non-governmental actors develop 85% local projects in developing
countries to benefit populations. **They participate in all meeting
national, subregional, regional and international ICT-related. They help to
inform policy makers on ICT policies and their implementation.
They raise funds for the implementation of ICT projects while creating
laboratories for technological solutions adapted to each environment**


*Baudouin


2010/12/16 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

> Dear list,
> Here, I prepared Draft "Talking points" for us to make as statement at
> the Friday meeting.
>
> I plan to extract the points from our consensus statement, first, but like
> to go further more, given the discussion at NY meeting on EC etc.
>
> So I invite you to make your comments, so that we have more integrated
> views expressed, if not a full consensus in 48 hours.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
> --------
>
> a) Need for "enhanced"  (not degraded) multistakeholder approach
> <I plan to put answers to the following questions – you provide, hopefully>
> - Why multistakeholder so important?
> - What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet
> governance itself and discussing about Internet governance such as
> CSTD IGF WG
> - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding
> non-governmental actors in the process
>
> b) c) Need for enhancing participation
> 1) Need for remote participation within IGF Consultation process
> - All IGF meetings and related consultation meetings have had some
> form of remote participation. It is important to continue this
> practice at CSTD consultation meetings on both IGF and EC. This allows
> many interested parties, including governments, but mostly civil
> society actors who have decent interests and reasons and willingness
> to participate but prohibited from doing so by cost of travel and
> amount of time to spend to have 5 minutes slots if lucky…
> - Remote participation costs little but works great – call for support
> from private sector – technology companies
> - IGC is willing to help coordinate – like we did at Vilnius IGF
> -
> 2) Expanding accreditation
> - There should be new process to give new accreditation to IGF
> consultation process if we are to “improve” it, not just to continue
> it
> - WSIS accreditation is 6 years old and limited
> - ECOSOC accreditation is difficult and time-consuming to obtain
>
> - Otherwise we will limit our own work to the “usual suspects” only
> and leaving vast new people who now have strong interest and who are
> strongly influenced by the outcome of Internet Governance, albeit IGF
> alone
> - Same goes true for Enhanced Cooperation and also largely to WSIS
> follow up which leads to the WSIS 2015
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101217/da9f601d/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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t