[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[Parminder]

Ginger and others

Why should we not just take the text from the statement we made 
proposing main themes for IGF Hyderabad that Bill has referred to( 
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 )   . The text is as follows. We can just 
update information of respective workshops on both the topics that were 
held in Egypt, one of them IGC co-sponsored. In nay case we have little 
time left to finalist the statement.

Excerpt from our statement for IGF Hyderabad

    Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet
    Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for
    the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as
    Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost
    all business and social activities. This main session will examine
    the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary
    interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. Issues
    about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly
    manifest in all layers of the Internet today.

    A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
    Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for
    the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the
    Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that
    devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between
    Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a
    workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with
    the Swiss government, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and
    other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a
    Development Agenda for Internet Governance." The workshop considered
    the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and
    action that would help mainstream development considerations into
    Internet governance decision making processes.
    Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work
    on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the
    Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at
    Hyderabad, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many
    participants there. We also support the Swiss government's proposal
    to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that
    could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda.


Parminder












William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ginger,
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to try to get some sense of consensus first on 
> topics before trying to wordsmith their descriptions?  It seems clear 
> there's a good chunk of people who'd like to propose NN again, but I'm 
> not clear that the same is true with respect to IG4D.
>
> BTW I just took a quick peek at our Hyderabad statement on main 
> sessions http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 which called for NN and DA, 
> and I believe there were prior statements endorsing a DA as well, but 
> most of our stuff is not on the site and my IGC folder going back to 
> 03 is a mess.  Sometime after the OC it'd be great if we could 
>  consolidate on the site from the list archive, Adam's old site, 
> etc... would be useful.
>
> On another note, the manager at Les Brasseurs just wrote to say they 
> can't reserve the whole room for us as we're only @ 14 people and 
> they're always packed.  Is a half a room and shouting at each other 
> through the noise ok, or do you want to consider another venue? 
>  Please let me know ASAP.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Thanks Bill,
>> Could you propose an alternate paragraph? I think we should try to 
>> get a concrete phrasing for consensus with the whole IGC (hopefully) 
>> reading the possibilities before we get to Geneva.
>>
>> We have many experts here on the list who will not be in Geneva. It 
>> is important for you to give us your input now, so that those of us 
>> who are in Geneva can properly represent the IGC. Even if you do not 
>> consider yourself an "expert", your experience and opinion count. 
>> Only by hearing from you, can we know what the IGC position is.
>>
>> Please post your ideas -- preferably with a proposed paragraph -- as 
>> soon as possible.
>>
>> Thanks! Best, Ginger
>>
>> William Drake wrote:
>>> McTim, et al,
>>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:40 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>   
>>>> 1. We tried Rights and DA for IG already and failed.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> With regard to the latter, it's true that the caucus has in the past done statements calling for a main session on the notion of a development agenda, and that this hasn't been taken up.  There are undoubtedly a number of reasons for this, including inter alia a) varying perceptions of the DAs that have been pursued in other international policy settings, e.g. WIPO; b) concerns or just lack of a clear view about what a DA might mean in the IG context; c) a + b + the idea arose outside MAG and lacked sufficient internal champions; and so on.
>>>
>>> However, the situation has changed.  At the May 09 OC Markus and Nitin mentioned several times that people have raised the connections between IG and development and said it might be ripe for a main session.  And in Sharm there were various expressions of interest in the possibility.  For example, in the WSIS Principles session I talked a bit about the DA workshop I'd organized, and Bill Graham in summarizing the discussion took favorable note of the conceptual progress made across this and the prior workshops I did at Hyderabad and Rio.  In the Taking Stock session I suggested a main session on IG4D (to which Sha made a favorable remark in reply), others also raised development as a cross-cutting theme that deserves more visible attention (e.g. Heather, Parminder, Willie, Fouad...even the USG), and if memory serves Nitin raised it in the closing.  So I think Parminder's right that the clouds have been seeded and there's reasonably wide interest in there being a main session
>>>  of some sort on IG4D, if not necessarily the DA framing.  Insofar as the IGC has advocated this and members have pushed the concept forward in various ways, it would be a rather odd moment for us to back off and not express continued interest in making it happen.  Walking away from an argument you're winning is generally an unusual strategy.
>>>
>>>   
>>>> 2. Your formulation of a DA for IG  found here:
>>>>     
>>>
>>>
>>> The concept of a DA is one that can be taken in a number of different directions.  Parminder sees an integral link to the negotiation of a Framework Convention.  APC has also advocated a DA (and I believe, a FC...foggy memory).  My view is that posing a DA as necessarily involving some sort of meta-negotiations, particularly of a FC, is premature and a conversation stopper; what I've argued for in the first instance is a holistic framework of analysis and dialogue on the links between global IG processes and outcomes on the one hand and development on the other that would identify good practices and such that could be taken up in decision making forums.  Those of us who are interested in this can and should debate the options further, the point here is that it doesn't make sense for you to fix on one way of thinking about the whole terrain and on that basis say no, bad idea.
>>>
>>> What I would suggest is that the IGC adopt a text advocating a more broadly framed main session on IG4D---what if anything does the term mean, what are the linkages between global IG and development with respect to core resources and other issue areas, how might one take the conversation forward.  In that context, the DA concept can be mentioned as a way of moving beyond identifying links toward doing something, with what that something may be posed as a point on which there are various perspectives.  This would hopefully avoid arousing undue concerns that would prevent the core concept of IG4D getting a hearing, without precluding the possibility of exploring DA visions in that broader context.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> Senior Associate
>>> Centre for International Governance
>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>  Development Studies
>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>> ***********************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>   
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100203/cbfb9505/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