[Mmwg] IGF Input

[William Drake]

Wolfgang,

> this is my final version, open for comments and addtional
> critical remarks. If you propose changes, please deliver the
> wanted language (short, clear and precise).

Attached are some suggested edits, almost all for grammar and clarity,
visible with track changes on, with explanations.   The text as it would
appear in this case, sans explanations, is below.

> As you see, I eliminated totally the controversial
> "philosophical" para on the nrole of T&A but added, according to
> Adms proposal a nice reference to para 77 of Tunis in para 3 of
> the statement. Is this diplomatic enough?

Diplomatic, and problematic, since it could be misconstrued.  In the
attached I inserted an inoffensive prefatory phrase, also from the Agenda
and all other WSIS docs, that fudges the issue and avoids appearing to
endorse proposals now in the air that were opposed by a number of people
here.

> I have to move away again fro my place and will be back only
> tomorrow morning.  We shoukd send out the papers tomorrow around noon.

Thanks,

Bill
------

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:
a.	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;
b.	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:

1. The MMWG strongly believe that the IGF should be an ongoing process of
dialogue, analysis, and capacity building in which the annual   events are
embedded, rather than be restricted to 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.

2.  The institutional framework for the IGF should be developed on a bottom
up basis with the full and equal participation of government, business,
civil society.  In this context, we note paragraph 72d of the Tunis Agenda
and strongly support the full inclusion of the academic, scientific and
technical communities in all aspects of the IGF. 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.

3.  Members of the MMG believe that a lightweight Programme Committee would
be sufficient to kick-start the process. In light of the experience gained
in the preparatory process, it might prove advisable, at a later stage, to
consider whether an additional body would be needed to facilitate the
process of discussion and the interaction among stakeholders between the
annual forums.

4. The composition of the “Programme Committee”, like any other body that
may emerge from the IGF process, should reflect the multistakeholder nature
of  Internet governance. It must also reflect the principles of
geographical, cultural, linguistic, and gender balance, as well as human
rights and developmental perspectives. The MMWG proposes that the IGF start
with a small “Programme Committee” equally representing all stakeholders.
Programme Committee members should participate on an equal, peer-level
basis. 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.

5. 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.

6. The Programme Committee should facilitate the bottom up formation of
“Discussion Groups on Internet Governance” (DGIGs) on various aspects of
Internet governance, in particular with regard to the issues  listed in
Section V of the WGIG Report. The Programme Committee should establish
transparent procedures and criteria for the formation and recognition of any
of such groups or initiatives stakeholders may wish to organize on relevant
topics.   All stakeholders should be able to propose groups on a bottom-up
basis.  Any such groups should be open to all stakeholders that may wish to
participate, transparent, 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.  Furthermore the Program Committee should also
define transparent procedures and criteria according to which such  groups
could propose any results of their activities as possible inputs for
consideration in the annual meetings.

7.  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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Internet Governance Forum Input Statement12.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33280 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060301/c45474c7/InternetGovernanceForumInputStatement12-0001.doc