[Mmwg] IGF Input

[Max Senges]

dear wolfgang

i dont know what the final 'consensus' is but if it is decided to 
sign-on to the comments i do so

again my suggestion was to use the language of a wg statement and then 
have individuals/organisations indicate their explicit approval if they 
wish so

Max Senges - Committee for a Democratic UN

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