[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[Parminder]

I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take this 
language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ Open 
Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights and 
principles' in the list, abstract a short para on it from the earlier 
statement which is relatively  not very sharp, and in size no longer 
than the paras on dev agenda and NN. We shd put it out for a day or so 
of last comments and then a final version for a consensus call over 48 
hours.

In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour workshops on 
the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized last year, which 
represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF 
context. And if 'internet rights and principles' is included as a main 
theme, that the DC on IRP has been doing good work in this area for 
considerable time now, an dis in fact the most active dynamic coalition 
(the much celebrated concept in the IGF).

Parminder

William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we are 
> proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea.  In 
> the event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for 
> Hyderabad, and we really can't use it anymore, it's dated.
>
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote:
>
>>     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.
>>
>
> How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive 
> thrust of what was previously agreed:
>
> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
>
> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the 
> IGF.  But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of 
> IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing 
> dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean 
> in conceptual and operational terms.  To address this gap, the IGC 
> previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for 
> Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or 
> produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an 
> agenda could entail.   In light of the related discussions during the 
> Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this 
> theme.  The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the 
> linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and 
> consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF 
> discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate.  We 
> also continue to 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.
>
> Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100205/849c60b3/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