[Mmwg] finalizing text

Tue Feb 28 12:47:32 GMT 2006

Hi Wolfgang (et al),

Just logged on to see that there's been no further discussion on the list and that the wiki hasn't been used.  This makes things a little ambiguous with respect to proceeding with finalization.  In the event that it helps, I just merged your text and my proposed changes into one file, side by side per para for comparison, and include them below.  I guess just use your judgment to pick whichever bits of language you think read best and come closest to reflecting sentiment on the list.  Again, the differences between the two versions through para 6 are primarily editorial, with some points rearranged in my version for flow, which makes comparison a little hard but if you print it out you can see what's where, all the same points covered in each.  

There are two main substantive differences.  First, on the key point of the forum being an umbrella under which various initiatives can be launched, you have text in para 6 on "eDGIGs," while I treat the topic a little more expansively in para 7.  I tend to think that we shouldn't be inventing non-standardized names for things the governments have never seen and might not embrace, and that it's better to flag that collaborations can take multiple forms---e.g. working groups, study groups, research networks---but there's been no discussion on the point, so whatever.  On para 8, you suggested simply deleting the 'technical' issue as there's a strong divergence of views, I thought my alternates (2 now) might be something everyone could agree on, the SG should reach out etc, but again, whatever.  Do what you think right.  Hope this is helpful.

Best,

Bill

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

INTRODUCTION

WK VERSION

Internet Governance Forum Input Statement 

by the Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group (MMWG)

February, 28, 2006 

Dear Mr. Kummer,

on behalf of the “Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group (MMWG), a discussion group which was established by the “Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus” with the mandate 

a. to clarify the concept of multistakeholderism in the WSIS Context and 

b. to facilitate discussion and interaction among individuals from governments, private sector and civil society with regard to Internet Governance,

we allow us provide the following input into the preparations of the “Internet Governance Forum” (IGF) according to your call from February, 19, 2006.

BD VERSION

Internet Governance Forum Input Statement 

of the Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group (MMWG)

28 February 2006 

Dear Mr. Kummer,

The Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group (MMWG) is a discussion group that was initiated by members of the WSIS civil society Internet Governance Caucus, with a mandate to :develop and propose generalizable modalities for the conduct of  post-WSIS  multistakeholder follow-up and implementation activities, including in the field of Internet governance; and

 facilitate discussion and interaction among individuals from governments, private sector and civil society on these matters.

The MMWG would like to offer the following input into the preparations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in accordance with  your request for comments  following the 16-17 February 2006 Consultations on the Establishment of the IGF:

PARA 1

WK VERSION

1.  The MMWG sees the IGF primarily as a process in which an annual “Forum” is embedded and not as an independent singular event which takes place once a year. As the WGIG report has stated, there is “a vacuum” in the global discussion process with regard to Internet Governance. Such a vacuum would not be filled by a three or four day meeting every fall.

BD VERSION

1. The MMWG strongly believe that the IGF should be  an ongoing process of dialogue, analysis, and capacity building in which the annual Forum events are embedded, rather than as the annual events alone. As the WGIG report has stated, there is “a vacuum” in the global discussion process with regard to Internet governance, and this cannot be filled solely by a three or four day meeting held once per year. 

PARA 2

WK VERSION

2. The institutional framework for the IGF should be developed bottom up according to the special functions and only insofar as there is a need for special formal arrangements to make the IGF a success. The MMWG opposes any heavy structured top down body like a “Bureau” or a “Council”, which risks to bureaucratize the IGF process and to reduce flexibility and efficiency. While procedural issues are important, the IGF should by mainly substance oriented.

BD VERSION

2.  The institutional framework for the IGF should be developed on a bottom up basis with the full participation of governments, the private sector, and civil society.  Formal institutional arrangements typical of other United Nations activities should be kept to the minimum required to make the IGF a success. We oppose the establishment of potentially “heavy” top-down structures like a “Bureau” or a “Council”, as these could bureaucratize the IGF process and  reduce its flexibility and efficiency.  The development and operation of any such arrangements should be fully compliant with the WSIS principles.

PARA 3

WK VERSION

The MMG believes, that to kick start the process a light weight “Programme Committee” would be enough. Based on the experiences of the preparation phase for IGF I, the IGF itself should discuss and decide whether an additional body would be needed to facilitate the process of discussion and the interaction among stakeholders between the annual forums. Such a “Facilitation Group” should be also as flexible as possible and avoid any bureaucratic structure.

BD VERSION

3.  Members of the MMG believe that a light weight Programme Committee would be sufficient to kick-start the process. It might be advisable to consider whether additional body would be needed to facilitate the process of discussion and the interaction among stakeholders between the annual forums. 

PARA 4

WK VERSION

4. The composition of the “Programme Committee”, like any other body which will emerge from the IGF process, should reflect the multistakeholder nature of the “Governance of the Internet”. It should also reflect the principle of geographical, cultural and language diversity and gender balance. The MMWG proposes to start with a small “Programme Committee” with not more than 15 (maximum 30) members, three (maximum six) from each of the five UN regions, representing governments, private sector and civil society on an equal footing. In the light of the experiences with the preparation of IGF I, another “Programme Committee” could be established for IGF II.

BD VERSION

4. The members of the Programme Committee should be appointed by the UN Secretary-General, based on input by the three stakeholder groups. The composition of the Programme Committee, like any other body or activity related to the IGF process, should reflect evenly balanced multistakeholder participation.   To the extent possible, it should also reflect the principles of geographical, cultural and language diversity and gender balance. Hence, the Committee should comprise not more than 15 (maximum 30) members, three (maximum six) from each of the five UN regions, equally representing governments, private sector and civil society.  Programme Committee members should participate on an equal, peer-level basis.

PARA 5

WK VERSION

5. The mandate of the “Programme Committee” should be

  1.. to kick start the IGF Process and 
b.    to prepare the first Internet Governance Forum.

BD VERSION

5. It may be advisable to consider whether the Programme Committee should be replenished with new members on an annual basis. If so, the Committee and the Secretariat could devise a procedure for this task, to be approved by the annual meeting.

PARA 6

WK VERSION

6. To kick start the IGF Process, the “Programme Committee” should, in close consultations with the IGF Secretariat and individual experts, publish as soon as possible a “Call for Proposals” (CFP) with the aim to identify the priority issues of the involved constituencies. On the basis of the results of the CFP, the “Programme Committee” could

    1.. decide on the agenda of the first IGF,
    2.. launch the establishment of “virtual/electronic Discussion Groups on Internet Governance” (eDGIGs) on issues related to the agenda of IGF I and
    3.. invite speakers for plenary and working sessions of IGF I. 
At a later stage, the Programme Committee could introduce a procedure to recognize other “eDGIGs”, dealing with various issues of interest for the global Internet Community according to documented requests by involved stakeholders and constituencies and based on a small set of clear criteria (minimum number of participants, multistakeholder participation, democratic, open and transparent etc.). Discussions in the “eDGIGs” would constitute, inter alia, the basis for the elaboration of recommendations by the IGF.

BD VERSION

6. Acting in close consultation with the IGF Secretariat and individual experts, the Program Committee should publish as soon as possible a “Call for Proposals” (CFP) soliciting input on priority issues to be considered at the first annual meeting in Greece. The Programme Committee should establish transparent procedures for the consideration of these inputs, as well as criteria for the selection of topics, speakers, and so on.  The Committee would then be responsible for making the final decision on these matters in accordance with the agreed procedures and criteria.

PARA 7

WK VERSION

7. The members of the first “Programme Committee” should be appointed by the UN Secretary General, based on input by the three stakeholder groups. The IGF I should adopt a procedure how to populate future “Programme Committees” or any other bodies, which will emerge within the IGF process.

BD VERSION

7.  The Programme Committee should also establish transparent procedures and criteria for the formation and recognition of any sub-groups or initiatives stakeholders may wish to organize on relevant topics.   All stakeholders should be able to propose sub-groups on a bottom-up basis.  These could take a number of forms, e.g. working groups on a specific topic, ongoing study groups or research networks focusing on broader themes, etc. Any such groupings should be self-financing (if funds are necessary), open to all stakeholders that may wish to participate, and based primarily on virtual collaboration.  They could engage in a range of activities, e.g. inclusive dialogue, monitoring and analysis of trends, conducting studies, and developing recommendations for action.  The Program Committee should also define transparent procedures and criteria according to which they could propose any results of their activities as possible inputs for consideration in the annual meetings.

PARA 8

WK VERSION  [WK proposes to delete entirely]

8.  With reference to paragraph 33 of the Final Report of the WGIG, the MMWG had also a long discussion, whether the “technical and academic community” should be treated as a forth “stakeholder” group under the IGF. The majority of the participants in the MMWG discussion agreed that the nature of both the technical and the academic community is different from the nature of the other three stakeholders, as indicated also in paragraph 66 of the WGIG report. While it is the first responsibility of technical experts and academicians to provide innovation, knowledge and expertise on an as much as possible neutral basis to everyone, governments, private sector and civil society have vested legitimate individual interests and stakes in the governance of the Internet. The MMWG underlines that the “Geneva WSIS Declaration of Principles” (December 2003) has recognized the above mentioned three groups as “main and important stakeholders” in the process. This was confirmed by the second WSIS phase and in particular by the “Tunis WSIS Agenda for the Information Society”, adopted in November 2005 in Tunis. Recognizing the special role the technical and academic community plays in Internet Governance, one option could be to establish an “Advisory Panel” with individual experts from both the technical and the academic community which could assist and help the “Programme Committee”.

BD VERSION

8.  The MMWG discussed the question of whether “technical and academic” people should be treated as an independent, fourth stakeholder group in the IGF, and the Internet Society’s related proposal that the “Internet community” be designated a “principal stakeholder.” While the majority of the participants in the MMWG remain unconvinced about the logic and necessity of such proposals,  while  they also agreed that technical and the academic experts play vitally important roles in Internet governance and should be fully engaged in the IGF process.  As such, we urge the UN Secretary-General to ensure that technical and academic experts are sufficiently represented in the Program Committee.

[Alternate if people don’t like the above]

8.  The MMWG urges the UN Secretary-General to ensure that technical and academic experts are sufficiently represented in the Program Committee.

---

9.  The MMWG will continue its discussion with regard to the second call of the IGF Secretariat related to content and substantial issues. We will provide another input before the dateline of March, 30, 2006.

Jacqueline Morris, MMWG Co-Chair

Wolfgang Kleinwächter, MMWG Co-Chair

*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland 
President, Computer Professionals for 
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake 
*******************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060228/d27872ef/attachment.htm