[governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal

[Jeremy Malcolm]

I've started a new thread so that it doesn't get missed, but this
follows on from our thread on the CSTD meeting and the Indian proposal.

I have two alternative texts to suggest for the workshop proposal, the
first of which is narrower, focussing on consideration of the Indian
proposal, and the other is a broader, more general evaluation of the
CSTD working group on both procedural and substantive bases.

There is, I suppose, no reason why we couldn't put both proposals
forward, but otherwise please discuss which proposal you prefer.  We'll
have to get moving to get co-sponsors on board, so please respond soon.

--- begins ---

OPTION 1: Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0

As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF,
the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed
Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly
Mandate".  The ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that other
countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired.

It was suggested that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to
deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background
material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a
roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that
discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each
issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies
for their action and feedback.

Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss
these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so
more fully, and to consider whether and how to take the proposals
forward.


OPTION 2: Evaluation of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF

In response to a resolution of ECOSOC, the Commission on Science and
Technology for Development (CSTD) formed a Working Group on Improvements
to the Internet Governance Forum, which met between the Vilnius and the
Nairobi meetings of the IGF.

The Working Group disbanded without producing a consensus report, due to
a number of procedural obstacles and substantive disagreements.  The
procedural issues included, at the outset, whether non-governmental
stakeholders should be allowed as members of the Working Group at all,
and subsequently whether the consensus report should be produced by a
multi-stakeholder drafting group or by the Chair.

The substantive disagreements within the Working Group included the
issues of outcomes from the IGF, the manner of selection of MAG members,
and ongoing funding of the IGF.

The purpose of this workshop is to objectively evaluate why the Working
Group was not more successful, to consider what alternative
multi-stakeholder structures and processes could be used for similar
high-level Internet governance exercises in future, and to propose
solutions in the substantive areas on which the Working Group was unable
to agree.

--- ends ---

PS. Whilst Parminder sent a copy of the Indian proposal to the list
recently, there is also a copy online at
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/the-indian-proposal-for-improvements-to-igf-outcomes.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress

Twitter #CICongress

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110407/5d88e5fa/attachment.bin>