[Mmwg] finalizing text

[Max Senges]

hi all

As there was zero response to my proposals (to include the facilitation 
of the provision of an appropriate web-presence in the perparation 
groups mandate and to setup a collaborative glossary ) i guess we will 
not include them in the doc. I would appreciate if someone could tell me 
why especially the former is not a relevant point though?

here is what i suggested again:

- ask the "Programme Committee" to facilitate the development of an 
appropriate website (virtual representation of information and 
discussion environment) of the IGF

- as one task of the 'kick start process': allow for the collaborative 
development of an Internet Governance glossary as a means to discuss and 
establish definitions to ensure unambiguous language and thus more 
efficient communication and negotiation. This would create a defined 
vocabulary and thus a first step towards mapping the thematic territory.

max




William Drake wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> *******************************************************
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>