[governance] Brainstorming [Improvements to IGC Coordination on IG Policies] #Working Groups
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Sun Sep 16 16:29:41 EDT 2012
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:48 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi Sala
>
> Unfortunately I've been unable to process all your prodigious output on
> all the listservs we co-habitate and thus am unable to recall when we
> collectively agreed on the need for a WG on CIR and to engage in forums
> beond the IGF. Would you mind resending the relevant surveys response
> totals and whatever else you are basing this on?
>
Thank you Bill, my comments are inline.
*Status of the Current IGC Survey*
*
*
The current Survey that is being carried out by the IGC is in relation to
whether the IGC is meeting its objectives under the Charter will close
today after 24 hours (following requests for extension). So far there are
28 responses. The results will be published in due course.
*Survey on IG Mapping and Feedback from the IGC*
The Survey that I was referring to in my introductory email was the one
which was on Internet Governance mapping that was done by Norbert Bollow
following questions that were designed by Jeremy Malcolm. Norbert has done
excellent work in mapping policy areas and forums. The Mapping IG concept
evolved from discussions on the IGC mailing list and Norbert suggests that
McTim was one of the central contributors to this concept of mapping. i
will send you the IG Mapping Survey offlist as it is a few attachments.
Aside from these, there have been numerous instances both online and
offline where suggestions have been made on the IGC getting its act
together to work strategically in meeting its core objectives. There are
numerous forums other than the IGF which highlights areas of concerns.
*The Idea of Working Groups*
*
*
The idea of the Working Group is not something new, the IGC has had them in
the past. It makes reasonable sense for focus groups specifically focused
on discussing critical issues, preparing positions, inviting input from the
IGC community, arriving at consensus in a manner that is collaborative,
inclusive and engages people. This is one way of ensuring that the process
is managed as a Team and is owned. If there are alternative suggestions,
please feel free to raise them.
*The Invitation to Brainstorm*
*
*
This email thread is entitled: Brainstorming where everyone is encouraged
to offer suggestions on how improvements can be made in coordinating
feedback etc. This is premised from the philosophy that the people should
decide which model works for them and how we should go about this. Once we
have decided on what model works best for us as the IGC, we can then use
the IG Map and also those that may not be included in the map at the moment
to clearly identify which forums we would like to engage in over the next
year, or couple of years and how we would like to participate.
*Classification of Focus Areas (Policy Clusters or Policy Areas)*
>
> If indeed there is consensus on doing something like this, I as a WGIG
> member I would argue against using the WGIG's construction of the
> topography as a starting point. That was a stabbing in the dark exercise
> from almost a decade ago that may not reflect the best way of thinking
> about these things today. It was also a politically negotiated document
> that was subject to constraints that don't apply here.
>
There is a need to identify focal areas to enable the IGC to work
efficiently towards fulfilling its mission and objectives under the
Charter. The areas that were identified in the WGIG Team are still
classification methods being used by the IGF and the MAG today. For the
purpose of ensuring that we have clear systems in place that will help us
to fulfil our mission and objectives as an IGC, we need to identify which
areas we would like to focus on.
The Policy Cluster areas that were identified are still cluster areas that
we are grappling with today. Yes these may have evolved somewhat but it
helps to work from a generally acceptable baseline of categorisation. We
need to look at means of organising coordinated responses that are
developed. There are areas which Norbert Bollow in one of his studies on
Internet Governance mapping suggested were currently not being addressed in
certain foras. It follows that the two Models I had thrown into the list
for comments are possible categorisations of policy spaces.
*Creating Repository for Civil Society*
>
> I do strongly agree on the need to do this, as I've said many times since
> 2003:
>
> >> • Create a repository of all submissions and Statements
> made by the IGC or other Civil Society organizations: This can be done by
> going through the ListServe Archives, UN Publications etc;
>
> Yes and in order to do this we need human resources and volunteers who
will commit to making an effort to consolidate this. I am assuming that
people will tend to do so only if it interests them, hence asking people
what areas resonate with them where they would like to apply their energy.
If this is done within Working Groups and in clear focal areas this will
mean efficiency, productivity and collaboration to produce synergy.
>
> thanks,
>
> Bill
>
> >
> >
> > On 9 Sep 2012, at 19:52, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> As you can imagine, we are constantly faced with the challenges of
> improving the manner in which we coordinate advocacy in policy areas
> pertaining to Internet Governance. Following the current evaluation of the
> IGC, we will issue another Survey to generate suggestions on how we can
> improve out internal coordination as the IGC. Things like developing
> positions on Policy areas.
> >> The IGC has following consensus developed positions on certain areas
> such as Freedom of Expression, Remote Participation, Human Rights etc.
> Noting that with critical forums looming namely, the IGF and other forums
> that will require global input from the IGC, I have put together some
> thoughts. Let me have your comments.
> >>
> >>
> >> Background
> >>
> >> Following the recent Survey conducted by the IGC there is consensus
> that there is a need to enhance the coordination of advocacy of critical
> Internet Governance issues in key Forums aside from the IGF. As such, we
> would like to gather your views about how we are going to go about
> achieving the same.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The WGIG 2005 Report had identified 4 Public Policy Clusters namely[1]:-
> >>
> >> a) (a) Issues Relating to Infrastructure and Management of Critical
> Internet Resources, including administration of domain name systems and
> Internet Protocol Addresses, Administration of the root server system,
> technical standards, peering and interconnection, telecommunications
> infrastructure, including innovative and convergent technologies, as well
> as multilingualization;
> >>
> >> b) (b) Issues relating to the use of the Internet including spam,
> network security and cyber crime;
> >>
> >> c) (c.) Issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an
> impact much wider than the Internet such as Intellectual Property Rights
> (IPR) and International Trade;
> >>
> >> d) (d.) Issues relating to the developmental aspects of Internet
> Governance in particular capacity building in developing countries.
> >>
> >> The WGIG then highlighted critical policy areas for the attention of
> the WSIS[2]. The Table below illustrates the Policy Cluster as well as the
> policy issues.
> >>
> >> No.
> >> #
> >> POLICY AREAS
> >> POLICY CLUSTER
> >> 1
> >> Administration of the Root Zones, Files and Systems
> >> a
> >> 2
> >> Interconnection Costs
> >> a
> >> 3
> >> Allocation of Domain Names
> >> a
> >> 4
> >> IP Addressing
> >> a
> >> 5
> >> Multilingualism
> >> a
> >> 6
> >> Internet Stability, Security and Cyber Crime
> >> b
> >> 7
> >> Spam
> >> b
> >> 8
> >> Intellectual Property Rights
> >> c
> >> 9
> >> Meaningful Participation in Global Policy Development
> >> a, b, c, d
> >> 10
> >> Capacity Building
> >> A,b,c,d
> >> 11
> >> Freedom of Expression
> >> A,b,c,d
> >> 12
> >> Data Protection and Privacy Rights
> >> A,b,c,d
> >> 13
> >> Consumer Rights
> >> A,b,c,d
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Working Groups
> >>
> >> Having read the feedback from the Survey that was done by Norbert
> Bollow some time ago, it is clear that it is far more beneficial to develop
> positions on key issues prior to deciding which forums the IGC is going to
> engage in. The Working Groups will mean that interested IGC subscribers
> can volunteer their names to be part of the Working Group. They can also
> volunteer to lead the Groups. For now it will be good if we agreed on a
> model for coordination, enlist volunteers etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Focus of Working Groups
> >>
> >> Working Groups can be tasked to do the following in each of their
> Policy Areas, namely:-
> >>
> >>
> >> • Create a repository of all submissions and Statements
> made by the IGC or other Civil Society organizations: This can be done by
> going through the ListServe Archives, UN Publications etc;
> >> • Identify the issues: What the issues are? Have these been
> addressed? Recommendations
> >> • Identify Forums for Advocacy: presentation of the IGC
> position
> >> • Preparation of an Information Paper : summary of issues,
> advocacy options
> >> • Generating Discussion: Generating Discussion with the IGC
> and assisting the IGC in formulating consensus position in the policy area
> >>
> >> There are a few options available to the IGC and that is whether we
> would like to have Working Groups that is based on the Policy Clusters
> could mean something like this. Please note that the Policy Clusters are
> far more expansive and include things like International Trade and issues
> tabled for discussions in relation to the WCIT.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Model 1
> >>
> >> Working Group
> >> Policy Cluster Description
> >> Policy Areas
> >> A
> >> Issues Relating to Infrastructure and Management of Critical Internet
> Resources, including administration of domain name systems and Internet
> Protocol Addresses, Administration of the root server system, technical
> standards, peering and interconnection, telecommunications infrastructure,
> including innovative and convergent technologies, as well as
> multilingualization
> >>
> >>
> >> #1, #2, #3, #4, #5
> >> B
> >> Issues relating to the use of the Internet including spam, network
> security and cyber crime;
> >>
> >> #6, #7
> >> C
> >> Issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact much wider
> than the Internet such as Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and
> International Trade
> >> #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13
> >> d
> >> Issues relating to the developmental aspects of Internet Governance in
> particular capacity building in developing countries
> >> #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Model 2
> >>
> >> To have 13 Working Groups to specifically work in the following policy
> areas.
> >>
> >> No.
> >> #
> >> POLICY AREAS
> >> POLICY CLUSTER
> >> 1
> >> Administration of the Root Zones, Files and Systems
> >> a
> >> 2
> >> Interconnection Costs
> >> a
> >> 3
> >> Allocation of Domain Names
> >> a
> >> 4
> >> IP Addressing
> >> a
> >> 5
> >> Multilingualism
> >> a
> >> 6
> >> Internet Stability, Security and Cyber Crime
> >> b
> >> 7
> >> Spam
> >> b
> >> 8
> >> Intellectual Property Rights
> >> c
> >> 9
> >> Meaningful Participation in Global Policy Development
> >> a, b, c, d
> >> 10
> >> Capacity Building
> >> A,b,c,d
> >> 11
> >> Freedom of Expression
> >> A,b,c,d
> >> 12
> >> Data Protection and Privacy Rights
> >> A,b,c,d
> >> 13
> >> Consumer Rights
> >> A,b,c,d
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance 2005, Chateau de
> Bossey in http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf
> >>
> >> [2] ibid
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> >> P.O. Box 17862
> >> Suva
> >> Fiji
> >>
> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120917/ac04d086/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list