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

Fri Mar 24 10:01:35 GMT 2006

Hi all,

Your arguments are relevant and constructive.  And I
share obviously the point of seen of Adam Peake who
proposed that the concept of three topics is a
limitation which should not be imposed. 
 	I agree completely on this fact.  I think that the
stopped topics are a good thing to have mulititudes on
the table.  Work is often enlassant I think.  By
targeting three topics I dare to hope that they will
find a profit of common cause.  And I think also IGF
will be to direct these topics for the construction of
our universe of information. 
 	I rent the effort of CS and of the DPSI for this
assembly line work because it is with the whole of all
that the solutions could be found by mutual agreement.
 And I do not find just that one made makes
close-cropped table on the heading of raised IG CS and
the DAPSI. 
	 I will also like to include/understand why the
industrialized governments and the private sector
limited the forum to be right an annual meeting? 

 Just in optics to have full information. 

Kind regars. 

--- William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> a écrit :

> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response
> goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual
> addresses for responses intended for specific
> people]
> 
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access
> automatic translation of this message!
> _______________________________________
> 
> 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,
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> 

 Laurent SANDZA MISSIMBALOBA 
Chargé à l'Environnement à JVFGabon 
Président de l'O.N.G Environnement Sans Frontières 
BP: 685 Libreville/Gabon 
TEl: +241 0668 16 18/0610 12 58 
Fax: +241 445 372 
Site web: http://www.jvfgabon.org 
E- mail:   sandzal at yahoo.fr/sandzal at hotmail.com

___________________________________________________________________________ 
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com