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