[Lac] Quick notes from Geneva

[Beatriz Busaniche]

sepan disculpar la ppt adjunta. 
es un reenvío. 


-----Mensaje reenviado-----
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Quick notes from Geneva
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:26:10 +0200

Hi, thank you for all the reports. I'll plan to send minutes later today
or tomorrow (I am still traveling) of an improvised IG caucus meeting we
had yesterday over lunch break.

Here is the text of my presentation plus the power point presentation.
Text in the mail, ppt as attachment.

Best, jeanette

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

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here as a
member and as a co-coordinator of the WSIS civil society Internet
Governance Caucus. The basic ideas, which I am going to present reflect
the position of that caucus. They also have the backing of the WSIS civil
society's content & theme group. The caucus's position paper has also
influenced some of the statements that have been presented yesterday.

I'd like to begin with the challenge the working group faces. One of the
important challenges concern the general acceptance or legitimacy of the
working group.

It is obvious that governments, private sector and civil society won't
accept the outcomes of the working group if they don't recognize
themselves in the results.

However, a working group with a limited membership of 20 or 40 people
cannot represent all constituencies and stakeholders in this field. And
for the sake of efficiency, it is even preferable that the working group
doesn't get too large. An open-ended process would clearly not be
efficient enough to meet the ambitious goals to be achieved in a very
narrow timeframe.

So, the working group faces a potential conflict between efficiency and
legitimacy: How can the working group gain international credibility and
support from all stakeholder groups although it is impossible to achieve
legitimacy through traditional forms of representation?

The Internet Governance Caucus has considered these questions and would
like to suggest some practical answers to this question, which cover the
following aspects: (1) Status of the working, (2) composition & structure
of the working group, (3) operating principles.

1 Status of the Working Group

The Plan of Action asks the Secretary General of the United Nations to set
up the working group on Internet Governance to prepare a report for the
second phase of the summit in Tunis in 2005.

In our view this means that the working group is not expected to negotiate
language on behalf of nation states but rather to support the work of the
Secretary General.
A further implication of this view would be that members of the working
group serve as peers.

Composition & Structure of IGWG (1/3)

The central idea we'd like to propose with regard to the working group's
structure is to follow a two tier approach with the WGIG acting mainly as
a facilitator. Let me briefly explain what we mean by a facilitator
approach.

Most of the questions the working group is expected to investigate are not
really new. In fact, the founding process of the working group itself has
already evoked a number of substantial new contributions on the subject of
Internet Governance (some of them put forward by members of the Internet
Governance caucus).

We therefore recommend that the working group should not try to re-invent
the wheel but rather regard its task as collecting, analyzing and
evaluating the broad regional, technical and academic expertise already
out there in the field of Internet Governance.

A further advantage of the facilitator approach would be that the working
group could reach out to user, expert and business communities from around
the world and provide opportunities for meaningful participation.

The second tier in this structure should thus comprise expert advisory
groups and ad hoc expert consultations. Together, they could help the core
working group to assemble and analyze the expertise relevant to the
working group's mission.

The facilitator approach as suggested here would not devaluate the status
of the working group but would help the working group to share the heavy
work load and at the same time make it more inclusive.

Composition & Structure of IGWG (2/3)

The working group will have to address a broad range of issues in a very
short period of time. Compressed schedule, heavy workload, and need for a
significant commitment of time suggests that the working group should be
formed at the working level not as a High Level Group. We would therefore
also suggest that the working group should have a relatively small
membership.

In our view, the membership of the working group
·	must be balanced between participants from governments, the private
sector and civil society,
·	from both developing and developed countries, and, equally important:
·	not favouring one group over any other
·	In addition, the working group should respect gender diversity.

Composition & Structure of IGWG (3/3)

These criteria lead us to the following suggestion for a basic structure:

The working group should comprise women and men with a high level of
experience in international ICT policy making including the issues the
working group will address. The wg should include:

·	Six to 10 participants from Governments
·	Six to 10 participants from Civil Society
·	Six to 10 participants from the Private Sector
·	plus a Chairperson or co-Chairs

The working group would thus have 19 to 32 members. Governments, the
private sector and civil society would be represented by an equal number
of members.

In addition, a limited number of observers from Intergovernmental and
International Organizations should be invited to join the working group.

We further recommend that, as far as reasonably possible, representation
from governments, the private sector and civil society be divided equally
between participants from developing and developed countries. Regional
diversity constitutes an essential feature of the working group as it
conducts consultations and gathers information. Strong consideration must
also be given to ensuring linguistic diversity in the group's membership.

Operational Principles (1/2)

We agree with many other speakers who have pointed out yesterday and today
that the WGIG should respect the governance principles as suggested in the
Summit Declaration and Action Plan.From a practical point of view, this
means that:

·	The working group should hold open public meetings where interested
individual may participate, either in person or remotely.
·	All submissions to the working group, minutes of meetings and documents
discussed should be publicly archived.
·	Formal consultations should be summarized and made publicly available.
·	Reports of the working group must be translated into all official UN
languages. Translation of materials throughout the process will be
essential to broad participation and acceptance of the working group's
output.
·	And to add another very important point: Reports of the working group,
its interim and final proposals and decisions must reflect consideration
of comments received and explain how those comments were taken into
account.

Operational Principles (2/2)

As pointed out earlier, the Working Group on Internet Governance should be
independent of the WSIS preparatory committee meetings.

The process should be as independent as possible of political blocs and
lobbies. Otherwise it risks further deadlocks as experienced during the
Geneva phase. We therefore recommend that the chair (or dual chairs)
should come from Civil Society and/or the Private Sector. They should be
chosen with the following criteria in mind:

·	Recognized leadership in international, multi-sector groups
·	Non partisan personality
·	At least one of them coming from a developing country
·	Fluent in several UN languages

Our last point concerns the funding of the working group:

The Working Group on Internet Governance must be provided with the
resources necessary to achieve the tasks as defined by the Summit's
declaration. The ambitious goals, the tight time frame and the need for
inclusiveness and openness make adequate funding of the working group even
more crucial.

Developing countries and civil society representatives face special
funding needs in order to participate. Without financial support their
participation will not be effective.

Resources should also be made available to support the translation of
materials into major languages and interpretation at meetings.

Thank you for your time and attention!

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Caucus-constribution-WGIG-consultation-21-09-04.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 35328 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/lac/attachments/20040922/57778d7f/Caucus-constribution-WGIG-consultation-21-09-04.ppt