Sorry, missed to cc the NCUC list.
For you info. Comment on the Internet governance working group process.
Thanks,
Adam
>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:55:47 +0900
>To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>From: Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [governance] civil society recommendations to UN Working Group
>
>I have a slightly different memory of what Markus Kummer said in
>Malaysia. He didn't emphasize the need for names quite as much as I
>think Vittorio and Milton have. I'll post more about that shortly (I
>sent email to Markus asking some questions, but forgot to ask if I
>could repost his reply... just waiting for that reply.)
>
>Whatever -- this does not mean we cannot/should not submit names,
>and of course any person or organization can send in any name at
>anytime. But I don't think that should be the caucus' priority at
>the moment.
>
>After KL and listening to Markus Kummer, following is what I noted
>as the timeline and actions:
>
>First consultation, September 20-21 in Geneva. Purpose is to
>discuss working group structure, working methodology and scope.
>Contributions are welcomed and should be sent by September 13 to
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Period from October to February '05 will be the fact finding phase.
>I believe he envisages open consultations, regional meetings,
>thematic meetings, expert advisory groups of different types
>(particularly experts from developing nations/regions.)
>
>The WG will submit some kind of report to PrepComm2, February 17-25,
>2005 (Geneva.)
>
>Period from March to July, evaluation, working on the definition,
>etc. And report writing.
>
>July, draft to governments.
>
>September, PrepComm3.
>
>November 16-18, Tunis Summit.
>
>
>Suggest we begin by thinking of comments we can send before Sept 13
>on structure and methodology of the working group, and general
>composition. I don't think we must limit ourselves to what we think
>politically possible (e.g. Veni's probably correct reading of the
>way things will work out), but instead suggest what we believe is
>right, and say why.
>
>So we could write a short outline of what we think the WG should
>look like and Wolfgang made a good start at this months ago.
>
>The Geneva documents give us an outline, they suggest balanced
>representation of all stakeholders from developing and developed
>nations. Obviously the WG has much to do in a short period of time
>and will consider a broad range of issues. This suggests the WG
>should be limited size (practicality of work getting done.) Markus
>Kummer has suggested that the working group be working level rather
>than a collection of figureheads (paraphrasing his remarks...),
>given the time and work that must be done I think we should agree
>with this. So our first contribution might suggest something like:
>6 govt seats,
>6 private sector,
>6 civil society,
>6 intergovernmental and international organizations (etc.)
>For each, the 6 must split 3 developing 3 developed (use a UNDP
>development index measure of developing?)
>Chair
>WG must respect gender diversity.
>
>Group of 25.
>
>A few of comments we might include in this first contribution:
>
>Markus Kummer has been clear when describing his interpretation of
>the negotiations that gave us the Geneva documents in December that
>the WG would be independent of the WSIS process, i.e. not serve the
>PrepComms. I think we should say that we agree with this and that
>all members selected to serve on the WG should support this
>situation.
>
>As much as possible, the WG should operate in a way that respects
>the principles suggested in the Geneva documents, i.e. that
>governance processes should be multilateral, transparent,
>democratic, and open to full participation by governments, the
>private sector and civil society. e.g. where possible open
>meetings, public archives of all submissions, notes of meetings
>taken and made available, etc.
>
>The group is not negotiating language on behalf of nation states, it
>is reporting to the UN Secretary General, as such members of the
>group serve as peers.
>
>Chair should not be from a government, or risk developing a
>political text (witness typical chair's reports) rather than the
>action oriented report that Geneva documents require.
>
> -
>
>Just a suggestion, comments? Perhaps this or something like this
>might be the first of a few contributions we make? Probably end up
>as one or two pages of text.
>
>Next could be a paper describing the more specific qualities and
>characteristics of WG members, then a paper on how we think the WG
>should do its work (consultations, any suggestions for expert
>groups, etc.), comments on scope, then we might reach names or a
>collection of names?
>
>I'm not sure this goes far enough, I'm a bit worried about
>suggesting things we think politically doable rather than what we
>think right. So be radical...
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>At 11:44 AM -0700 7/27/04, Robin Gross wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>Were there any further discussions in Kuala Lumpur last week (or
>>elsewhere) on selecting this caucus' recommendations for membership
>>onto the UN Working Group on Internet Governance?
>>
>>Is information available about a time frame for this process or its
>>next steps? Thank you.
>>
>>Robin Gross
>>IP Justice Executive Director
>>www.ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>governance mailing list
>>[log in to unmask]
>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>[log in to unmask]
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
|
