VS: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Thanks Robert for the text from Tunis.
 
I propose that we get rid of this problem and make no statement on the issue. 
 
As you can see from the text, Robert has added, there was a different treatment of the "stakeholders (three natural groups and two sui generis groups, constituted by representatives of the three main stakeholder groups/IGOs and IOs) - this is para. 35 - and the TAC - this is para. 36. My proposal was intended to channel the TAC into a less political body which would give - as Bill has said - from a certain distance "advise" to stakeholders, which are doing real policy. For me it would such a construction would make sense and it would not confuse people. But I see that there is no agreement and so lets take this out. We concentrate on the key formal issues, where we have an agreement. 
 
I leave now and will have lectures tomorrow from 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. I will be in the office about 4.30 and will try to summarize the debate and send it for final approval about 6.00 p.m. CET. 
 
I agree with Bill that it would not be a big thing if the statement arrives on Wednesday morning only. Masrkus has holidays these days and will be back in his office not before Wednesday. 
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 
 
     

________________________________

Lähettäjä: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org puolesta: Robert Guerra
Lähetetty: ma 27.2.2006 17:42
Vastaanottaja: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Aihe: Re: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input



Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> Bill:
> W's proposal for a special Advisory Committee of T&A is totally out of the blue and has never been discussed. 
> 
> Wolfgang:
> This is not rrue. I advertised this idea already in Tunis and repeated in frequently in several mails. The idea was to get rid of the debate on a 4th stakeholder group. And indeed,, if I remember the discussion from the Chateau, it was the argument, that the nature of this group is different that the nature of stakeholders (neutral advisers, consultants vs. advocacy groups).


To be honest I don't recall this discussion, at least not in the open.

Let's not get on what was said or not in the "Chateau", as only WGIG
members were present.

I have serious reservations on raising issues with the Tunis texts.

btw. The stakeholders in question are referenced in para 35 a-e of the
Tunis agenda. (see below)



> Bill:
> I for one would be strongly opposed to it.
> 
> Wolfgang:
> Why? I do not understand it. Academic advise to the IGF is one of our targets with regard to the Malta/Dresden process on a "Global Internet Governance Academic Research network".

Again, let's remember that the virtual community engaged and interested
in the IGF discussions is much broader than the select few who can
attend one or more given conferences. If ideas, suggestions and/or
proposals come up - please - mention them on-line  (ie. on this list) so
that the broader community can know about it and comment accordingly.

Others are following the discussion virtually and would like to be
engaged as much as possible. This can be said not only of CS, but also
of other stakeholders (ie. tiny ngos, small companies, developing
nations, island states, etc..)


regards,

Robert

--


TUNIS AGENDA FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY

[...]

30.     We acknowledge that the Internet, a central element of the
infrastructure of the Information Society, has evolved from a research
and academic facility into a global facility available to the public.

[...]

35.     We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both
technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders
and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this
respect it is recognized that:
a)      Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
international Internet-related public policy issues.
b)      The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important
role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and
economic fields.
c)      Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters,
especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role.
d)      Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to
have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public
policy issues.
e)      International organizations have also had and should continue to have
an important role in the development of Internet-related technical
standards and relevant policies.

36.     We recognize the valuable contribution by the academic and technical
communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in paragraph 35 to
the evolution, functioning and development of the Internet.



_______________________________________________
mmwg mailing list
mmwg at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg