VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input

[Adam Peake]

>hi
>
>i think that perhaps part of the problem with 
>T&A, is the T and A perhaps do not belong in the 
>same category except for the fact that they were 
>both excluded from earlier categorizations.
>
>I think the idea of Academics forming networks 
>and finding a respected role as neutral advisors 
>is good and worthy goal.   and besides Academics 
>have found a welcoming home in CS.
>
>but when we talk about the ITC (Internet 
>Technical (and operational) Community, we are 
>talking about the stakeholders who currently 
>control the de-facto mechanisms of governance. 
>to argue that they don't deserve an role on 
>equal footing can be interpreted as somewhat 
>alienating.  and it is a sad fact that the ITC 
>folks have not found such a great home in CS. 
>the fit isn't as good.


Perhaps the ITC folks haven't tried very hard to fit in?

Have to be very careful here, "ITC folks" is 
rather too broad, some, particularly the RIRs 
have been involved and worked with CS.  And very 
obviously some people from this ITC group have 
participated in civil society (we selected at 
least 2 among our nominees to WGIG) and people 
from RIRs in particular were active and made 
important contributions to CS discussions both 
during Geneva and Tunis phases.  The relationship 
was slightly strained, some in civil society had 
a rather purist view of what an CS organization 
should look like, and perhaps because the RIRs 
weren't sure if they "belonged".

The other technical folk (IAB?) were occasionally 
involved but largely dismissive, involved in 
speaking events, but not engaged ('Internet 
governance... there is no such thing' type.) 
ISOC generally found it hard to work with CS: 
ISOC  was originally pretty much disinterested in 
the WSIS process (senior ISOC policy staff who 
found WSIS a complete waste of time and were 
quite happy to berate anyone who dared to suggest 
otherwise). ISOC has tended to be pretty 
unwilling to compromise on positions. And, of 
course some CS participants seem to hold rather 
strong anti-ISOC feelings (we're to blame too), 
unsure if ISOC is a northern industry association 
or representative of all things wholesome on the 
Internet (I think it's a mix.)

But, overall, it's a little odd that when 
everyone seems in agreement about the importance 
of involving all stakeholders, a lot of 
discussion is about how to partition stakeholders 
off into silos.

(So I think I'm in agreement with Vittorio.)

Specific suggestions (hoping they don't get lost 
in the BS above) referring to the text Robert 
marked up as PDF on Monday.

On the MMWG mandate (line 10), suggest saying "to 
facilitate discussion and interaction among 
individuals from all stakeholders with regard to 
Internet Governance" (i.e. do not refer to the 
usual 3 stakeholder groups.)

Line 13.  Rather than "Members of the MMWG ...", 
say, "The MMWG would like to offer the following 
..." J and W are chairs, I think we need to trust 
them to call it when the believe they have a fair 
consensus on an issue (of course they might not 
agree with the way I've written this, but my 
point is that we need to change from the 
wishy-washy style of the IG caucus.)

Line 17.  Similar to above... "The MMWG strongly believes ... "

Line 19. "The institutional framework for the IGF 
should be developed on a bottom up basis with the 
full and equal participation of all stakeholders. 
We note paragraph 72 d of the Tunis Agenda and 
strongly support the full inclusion of the 
academic, scientific and technical communities in 
all aspects of the IGF."  i.e. delete reference 
to the 3 stakeholder and make reference to these 
sometimes over looked stakeholders (I think this 
would then make para 8 redundant.)

Line 21.  I'm indifferent about facilitation 
groups.  I think it's best to start simple, the 
program committee designs the program as it 
thinks fit. I think there needs to be reference 
to ensuring equal regional representation in 
program committee and, reflecting the mandate of 
the IGF, the program committee must also have a 
strong development perspective.

Line 25.  "... appointed by the UN 25 
Secretary-General, based on input by all 
stakeholders."  (delete mention of the three 
stakeholders again.)

Line 25. delete "To the extent possible"  And 
suggest "The program committee must also reflect 
the principles of geographical, cultural and 
language diversity and gender balance, and ensure 
that at a majority of members are from developing 
nations [global south? what's the correct 
language...]."

I would not mention specific numbers.  Stick to 
principles, governments will be killing 
themselves over numbers, perhaps something like, 
"not withstanding the need to ensure diversity in 
skills, experience, and representation, the 
practical requirement to complete a heavy 
workload in a short period of time suggests the 
program committee should have a relatively small 
membership."

Line 33.  I would add at the end of this 
paragraph "MMWG notes that paragraph 72 of the 
Tunis Agenda strongly suggests that the IGF will 
consider a very broad range of issues. We are 
concerned that following the recent consultation 
on convening the IGF there have been suggestions 
to limit the issues the IGF in Athens will 
address.  We believe that any such limitation, 
while perhaps conceived as practically 
convenient, is in contradiction to the sprit and 
words of the mandate of the IGF and should be 
resisted."

Line 35.  I would delete "self-financing (if funds are necessary)".

Line 41.  delete it.  All stakeholders should be equal.

All probably too late!

Thanks,

Adam




>i think that if this group has nothing it can 
>agree to say on that particular issue it should 
>be left out.
>
>a.
>
>
>
>
>On 27 feb 2006, at 17.04, 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).
>>
>>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".
>>
>>Best
>>
>>wolfgang
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>mmwg mailing list
>>mmwg at wsis-cs.org
>>http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mmwg mailing list
>mmwg at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg