[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

Mon Feb 11 16:50:59 EST 2013

[IGC Coordinator hat on]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.

A number of comments have been made that we now need to resolve. In the
following, I will give, for each of the paragraphs, the comment, and
then propose a resolution.

If from your perspective either the current text or the proposed
resolution is not acceptable, please say so by Wednesday Feb 13, 23.59
PST. If we get opposition to both variants, the coordinators may be
forced to make a rough consensus call or, in the worst case, drop the
conflicted paragraph from the statement in its entirety. Let's try to
avoid that eventuality.

All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107

Paragraph 3
===========
Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
It is time to do what it really needed to do."

McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
does it “really need to do”?"

Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
of."

Paragraph 12
============
Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."

Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"

Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."

Paragraphs 13 + 14
==================
Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"

Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."

Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
"There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
times."

Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
who have been heard from many times."

Paragraphs 21 and 22
====================
Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"

Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
to decide on topics and format."

Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
proceed unfortunately."

Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"

Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
suggestions to that effect."

Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"

Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
Action Plan (2003)"

Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
“governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
[The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
[Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
format."

Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.

Paragraph 36
============
Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."

Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."

Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."

Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
stakeholders can comment."

Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."

Any missed comments???
======================
If I've missed any comments (that were posted by the deadline) please
repost them ASAP, together with a proposed resolution.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- 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