[WSIS CS-Plenary] RE: [governance] IG Public policy issues - approx 7 days left todeadline.. [March 31/06]

[William Drake]

Hi Ian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Ian Peter
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:41 PM

> I think the first comment may have been Adam Peake's which suggested that
> the three themes concept is a limitation which should not be imposed and
> appears to differ from the WGIG mandate. I think first thing we need to do
> is state that more themes than three should be discussed if the
> event is to
> be effective.
>
> Also attached a response I sent to IGF - it mentions about 20
> policy themes

I think the lack of clarity on the Athens format and on the ongoing
multilevel process vs. one-off annual meetings issue is causing some
problems here.  On the one hand, since we started talking about a forum or
forum function in early 2004, CS people have consistently argued for a broad
and unrestricted agenda with nothing that falls under the IG rubric being
taken off the table simply because this or that set of powerful actors deem
it to be "controversial" and don't want to talk about it in an open
multistakeholder setting.  We took the same line at the February IGF
consultation and since, and should as you and Adam suggest continue to
insist on it as a matter of principle.

On the other hand, the industrialized country governments and private sector
presently prefer to restrict the forum to being just an annual meeting, the
secretariat can hardly ignore their views, and aside from oral interventions
in Geneva and the brief MMWG input, we have not really articulated what an
ongoing, multilevel process might look like.  Hence, at present the planning
is proceeding on the assumption that we are primarily talking about a four
day meeting in Athens.  As the Brazilian delegate pointed out at the
consultation, a chunk of time at the front and back ends of that period
could be spent on the usual formalities (congratulations to the host, the
chairman, etc) and organizational matters, so the actual amount of plenary
time could be more like three days. In this context, it's not surprising
that the secretariat would want to limit the focus to just three issues in
the hope of having some focus and prospect of "success" that will make
funders et al. want to stay engaged.  In fact, with 600 or more people in
the room and many wanting to speak, even this may be too ambitious.  Imagine
a one-day plenary on, say, spam, then another on multilingualism, etc---how
much progress could these dialogues really make, what recommendations could
we realistically expect beyond Tunis-style generalities like more
international cooperation is desirable?  As long as we are limited to this
format, calling for the treatment of more than three issues will be
interpreted as us being unrealistic and impractical.

So process and substance demands are intrinsically linked.  If we're going
to send them multiple topical suggestions and say these are all important to
us, I think we should also a) call for at least one and maybe two days in
Athens being devoted to parallel workshops, any outputs of which could then
be brought into the plenary sessions; and b) an agreement that, per MMWG,
topical working groups can be formed bottom-up, formally linked to the IGF,
work virtually, and present any outputs and recommendations at Rio.  Where
there's consensus, the Athens workshops could serve as the boot-up moment
for the creation of such groups.

This would accommodate not only multiple topical threads, but work on issues
that require analysis and gestation.  For example, I've been arguing for a
focus on application of the WSIS principles to existing governance
mechanisms, and will write up a proposal for the pile before March 31, but I
don't think one could expect a coherent and useful plenary discussion on
this in Athens.  First there has to be an analysis of the extent to which
the various public and private governance mechanisms are or are not
transparent, multistakeholder, etc. so there's something tangible to talk
off of.  I think some of the other issues that have been proposed on the
list, and in your letter to Markus, may be similar in this respect.

Best,

Bill



 which would impose significant bandwidth limitations on what can be
covered,