<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Mmwg] Update on upcoming IGF consultations</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi Bertrand,<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for the update. What’s 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 didn’t 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 FCC’s Benchmark Order. Point is, IF the WTPFs can be reconstituted on a truly multistakeholder basis (which wouldn’t require any changes to ITU instruments), they could serve as a useful complement to/catalyst for the IGF, and more, so it’d be interesting to know how that discussion has gone, assuming it’s come up....<BR>
<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"><B>From: </B>Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@gmail.com><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:08:11 +0200<BR>
<B>To: </B>Avri Doria <avri@acm.org><BR>
<B>Cc: </B>MMWG <mmwg@wsis-cs.org><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: [Mmwg] Update on upcoming IGF consultations<BR>
<BR>
Hi to all,<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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". <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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). <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
I, in any case, am looking forward to it, as I consider it part of my responsibilities in my new functions.<BR>
<BR>
Best to all.<BR>
<BR>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<BR>
Special Envoy for the Information Society<BR>
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 11/23/06, <B>Avri Doria</B> <avri@acm.org> wrote: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
Hi,<BR>
<BR>
Plans are currently being made for an IGF stock taking session in<BR>
Geneva in February.<BR>
<BR>
The MAG will tentatively meet on 12 Febraury to do it own stock<BR>
taking and there will be open consultations on the 13th. The open<BR>
consultations will include translation into the 6 UN languages.<BR>
<BR>
This is still in the planning stage and the dates won't be confirmed <BR>
until the end of the year, but I wanted to let people know as early<BR>
as possible. As I understand it, the agenda will be rather open and<BR>
will include topics such as:<BR>
<BR>
- assessment of the the first IGF<BR>
- recommendations for future IGF meeting process <BR>
- discussion regarding the future of the advisory groups<BR>
- ideas for interim processes<BR>
<BR>
some of this has to do with multistakeholder modalities. and while<BR>
this group has gone dormant (or is that stillborn?) i am wondering <BR>
whether there is anything this group wants to work on as stock taking<BR>
and suggestions for the future.<BR>
<BR>
a.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
mmwg mailing list<BR>
mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR>
<a href="http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg">http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg</a><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%">_______________________________________________<BR>
mmwg mailing list<BR>
mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR>
<a href="http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg">http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>