[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[parminder]

Norbert / All

Thanks for bringing these inputs and/or proposed changes to the 
statement to the elist. In fact I prefer that all substantial inputs/ 
proposed changes are made on this list, and not just on the web page... 
It helps engage others to comment, and may be, without suggesting that 
anyone is being irresponsible, increases the sense of responsibility  of 
whoever makes suggestions for changes. As argued earlier deliberative 
democracy is the key legitimacy of civil society, and I have found that 
inputting in the ensconced solitude of writing comments on editable web 
pages is often not the best way to promote deliberative democracy.

May I request that from now on whoever wants to make substantial 
amendments to the proposed statements also sends an email to this group 
about it - preferably with some amount of due reasoning.

parminder


On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [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