[WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: [governance] WG: Grey Smog over Chateau Bossey

[Adam Peake]

Thanks to Wolfgang and all the other CS members 
of the WGIG.  Seems they have done a great job. 
And we will find out for sure on or around July 1 
when the report is published. Below, see 
Wolfgang's comments on the report and timeline 
from now.

There will be many things to discuss in the 
report, and hope anyone interested will join 
discussion on the governance list.  But one thing 
we should agree on now is the need to guard 
against the report being discussed in the typical 
intergovernmental prepcom process, i.e. without 
meaningful participation of civil society and 
private sector. I (Adam) made a short statement 
at the last WGIG meeting in Geneva (June 14) that 
included text taken from the comments agreed and 
read at PrepCom-2:

     "Regarding follow up of WGIG's final report, 
negotiations must be conducted "in an open and 
inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for 
the full and active participation of governments, 
the private sector and civil society from both 
developing and developed countries" as stated in 
the Geneva declaration of principles. The final 
negotiated document MUST reflect and honour the 
multi-stakeholder process that produced it."

Hope there is agreement to this, it should be the 
basis of civil society's position on the WGIG 
from now to PrepCom-3.

Thanks,

Adam and Jeanette, IG caucus coordinators



>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:40:20 +0200
>From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter
>	<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Thread-topic: Grey Smog over Chateau Bossey
>Thread-index: AcVziZnrZUg/jUnzQeOndPqdnp0TLgAoS2EqAH7kXQYAFEvHLw==
>X-Scan-Signature: 71b10fa6b84557f806a07f6b1547f79a
>Subject: [governance] WG: Grey Smog over Chateau Bossey
>X-BeenThere: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>List-Id: For WSIS Discussions on Governance <governance.lists.cpsr.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>List-Subscribe: <https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance>,
>	<mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Archive: </pipermail>
>List-Unsubscribe: <https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance>,
>	<mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>Sender: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>
>This is from Sunday, but did bounce back. Here it is again:
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>Vittorias short info has given you already a 
>taste of the final outcome. Indee, Nitin Desai 
>has asked everybody to follow the Chatham House 
>rules and not leak too much details before Annan 
>has released the report.I can only confirm what 
>Vittorio has said that the final outcome after 
>two night sessions (until 2.00 a.m. in the 
>morning) is not so bad. It is no breakthrough 
>and I would it describe as "Grey Smog over 
>Chateau Bossey". From CS perspective the best 
>thing is certainly that everything is based on 
>"multistakeholderism".
>
>While we can start the discussion on content ans 
>the concrete receommendation after the report is 
>public, we can already prepare for the 
>procedere. Here is the timetable:
>July, 1 (or so), 2005: publication of the report
>July, 13, 2005: Luxemburg, ICANN WSIS Seminar
>July, 18, 2005: official presentation (one day) 
>with panels and structured discussion in form of 
>open consultations in Geneva  
>July, 19, 2005: One day seminar on the "National Dimension of IG" in Geneva.
>July - August 2005: comments to the GFC on the report
>early  September 2005: GFC will send "compilation document" to PrepCom3
>September, 14 - 30, 2005: PrepCom 3 in Geneva
>October to November: Numerous events for discussion
>November 14 - 16, 2005: WSIS II (probably PrepCom3+ on the eve of WSIS II)
>
>Here are two more events where I am involved:
>July, 25, 2005: Taipeh, Annual IAMCR World 
>Congress with three hour WSIS/WGIG/IG Plenary
>October, 21-22, 2005: 6th Meeting of the ICANN Studienkreis in Brussels
>
>Best regards and once again thanks for all the 
>input CS members got from the constituency. All 
>CS members of the WGIG were key in the group and 
>a driving force both in the online and offline 
>discussions. As I heard from other WGIG members, 
>it was also for them a new experiecne, 
>realizing, that CS is a "partner" who makes not 
>only trouble but brings additional (not always 
>loved but needed) value to the process. We 
>always realized, that we are part of a greater 
>community, bearing a responsibility for "the 
>other side" of the Internet world and having 
>also in mind, that regardless of one billion 
>Internet users in the world, there are five 
>million which have no access. We did what we 
>could (also with great flexibility and with a 
>good division of labour) to bring innovative 
>bottom up ideas, representing users interests 
>and minority groups, human rights and 
>development, to the discussion table.
>
>More detailed analyses will follow soon.
>
>Best
>
>wolfgang
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
>Gesendet: Sa 18.06.2005 00:04
>An: Milton Mueller
>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Betreff: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Interim Report WGIG Chateau]
>
>
>
>
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>>>Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 6/16/2005 4:22:47 PM >>>
>>>
>>>I take this to be a rhetoric question. The IETF is not even
>>>incorporated. How could be forced to accept a GAC?
>>
>>
>>  IETF is increasingly formally included as part of ISOC, which is
>>  incorporated. OK, shall ISOC be forced to have a GAC?
>>
>>>My sense is that the idea of multi-stakeholderism refers to policy
>>>areas where there is so called public interest involved.
>>>If governments think that the IETF does standards that touch
>>>upon public interest, they can start a study group in the ITU.
>>
>>
>>  They could, but will they? Anyway, give me clear criteria for
>>  determining what aspects of the Internet do NOT "touch upon the public
>>  interest." How light or heavy does this "touch" have to be? ;-)
>
>In a wider sense everything is related to public interest, if that is
>what you are referring to. In the OECD world, however, most governments
>seem to have decided to shift the balance between public service and
>private sector towards the latter, at least as far as telecommunication
>is concerned. Standard setting is not regarded a genuin sovereign task
>anymore is it? I find it difficult to imagine that the EU or the US
>would like to create a GAC for the IETF or the W3C or similar bodies.
>The general political climate in the developed world is not one that
>welcomes new forms of political control.
>ISOC would benefit from a different structure, yes, but a GAC is the
>least likely form of change we'll see. You know all this better than me.
>So, Milton, what exactly are you asking?
>jeanette
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance