[Mmwg] Update on upcoming IGF consultations

Thu Nov 23 09:35:21 GMT 2006

Hi Bertrand,

Thanks for the update.  What¹s the status of the proposal to hold another
ITU World Telecom Policy Forum, this time on a multistakeholder basis?  In
the past, it was just governments and sector members who could attend and
speak, which was highly restrictive.  CS had no defined participation right,
and I had to join the US delegations in order to attend and sit quietly as
Dick Beaird of the State Dept. spoke for all of us (well, not me, I didn¹t
agree with the positions).  The WTPF is potentially interesting in a number
of respects, including the fact that unlike the IGF, it has a specific
mandate to collectively tweak and adopt texts drafted by the secretariat
based on inputs.  In the case of GMPCS, this resulted in a quite useful MOU
(useful at least until the technology and markets changed and sort of gutted
the concept).  For accounting rates/trade in services and Internet
telephony, subsequent forums adopted non-binding recommendations that
impacted the global policy debate somewhat and led to various follow-on
actions, most notably assistance to developing countries in adjusting to the
FCC¹s Benchmark Order.  Point is, IF the WTPFs can be reconstituted on a
truly multistakeholder basis (which wouldn¹t require any changes to ITU
instruments), they could serve as a useful complement to/catalyst for the
IGF, and more, so it¹d be interesting to know how that discussion has gone,
assuming it¹s come up....

Thanks,

Bill

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:08:11 +0200
To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Cc: MMWG <mmwg at wsis-cs.org>
Subject: Re: [Mmwg] Update on upcoming IGF consultations

Hi to all,

Thanks Avri for the reminder. As you indicate, part of the Agenda of the
February meeting will be, roughly speaking, modalities for multi-stakeholder
interaction. This will be an interesting occasion and I believe the MMWG can
prove handy in that context by allowing some early discussions in a MS
format ahead of time.

As a matter of fact, this issue of multi-stakeholder modalities is not
restricted to the IGF and the issue is percolating in other fora.

In particular, the Plenipotentiary Conference of ITU in Antalya is about to
finish and a working group should be established to "study the participation
of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the union related to
WSIS". We had interesting discussions on  that issue here in Antalya and the
resolution calls for open consultations.

In addition, another resolution deals with "the role of ITU with regard to
international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the
management of internet resources, including domain names and addresses". It
explicitly mentions the IGF : the Secretary General is instructed to
"continue to contribute as appropriate to the work of the Internet
governance Forum". Its other main provision is an instruction to the
Secretary General "to organize consultations on these issues among the ITU
membership and other relevant stakeholders, to prepare and submit proposals,
based on those consultations and contributions from the ITU Membership, to
Council 2007". 

Unesco is also potentially concerned by multi-stakeholder modalities, as its
facilitation meetings in October on the implementation of Action Lines
clearly demonstrated. Likewise with the CSTD meeting that took place in
Paris early November.

Definition of appropriate multi-stakeholder modalities (that is : a better
understanding of  the respective roles and responsibilities of the different
stakeholders) is therefore one of the major challenges ahead of us all and
the IGF is an important test bed in that respect.

But it is important to keep in mind that there will not be a unique
definition of these respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders :
they will inevitably vary according to the issues themselves, the venue they
are discussed in, and the purpose of the discussion (for instance beetween a
preliminary exchange of views, the drafting of documents or the formal
adoption of constraining regulations).

The IGF having no decision-making capacity, it is easier to explore there
innovative modalities for multi-stakeholder interaction in decision-shaping
phases. such modalities could be used later in other fora to provide input
in more formal discussions. The innovative concept of Dynamic Coalitions is
an important subject in that respect.

October, November and early December of 2006 will have witnessed in close
succession : the IGF, the ITU plenipot and the Sao Paolo ICANN meeting. It
will be very interesting to exchange afterwards in the MMWG (that is : in a
multi-stakeholder format) to prepare the February stock-taking on IGF.

I, in any case, am looking forward to it, as I consider it part of my
responsibilities in my new functions.

Best to all.

Bertrand de La Chapelle
Special Envoy for the Information Society
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs

On 11/23/06, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Plans are currently being made for an IGF stock taking session in
> Geneva in February.
> 
> The MAG will tentatively meet on 12 Febraury to do it own stock
> taking and there will be open consultations on the 13th.  The open
> consultations will include translation into the 6 UN languages.
> 
> This is still in the planning stage and the dates won't be confirmed
> until the end of the year, but I wanted to let people know as early
> as possible.  As I understand it, the agenda will be rather open and
> will include topics such as:
> 
> - assessment of the the first IGF
> - recommendations for future IGF meeting process
> - discussion regarding the future of the advisory groups
> - ideas for interim processes
> 
> some of this has to do with multistakeholder modalities.  and while
> this group has gone dormant (or is that stillborn?) i am wondering
> whether there is anything this group wants to work on as stock taking
> and suggestions for the future.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20061123/5bf7261f/attachment.htm