[WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] APC Statement as IGF II closes

[Ralf Bendrath]

Hi Karen, Willie, Anriette and others,

karen banks schrieb:
> APC statement on the second Internet Governance Forum
Very good statement in general, thanks for pushing our thinking forward as
usual.

A quick feedback on one important point:

> - Convene ‘IGF Working Groups’: APC recommends that the IGF uses the 
> format of the WGIG, or bodies such as the IETF (Internet Engineering 
> Task Force) to convene working groups to address complex issues that 
> emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals with
> the necessary expertise, and drawn from different stakeholder groups.
> These groups can then engage specific issues in greater depth, and, if
> they feel it is required, develop recommendations that can be 
> communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed to 
> specific institutions. .

This is a really interesting proposal and a good way to use the potential
of para 72g of the Tunis Agenda.

> These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed 
> recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions for
> action from the individuals in the Working Group.These working groups
> have a different role from the self-organised dynamic coalitions which
> we believe should continue.
Just to be clear: In which way would they be different?
Do you envisage them as being set up by the chairman?
Would they have a limited lifespan? A closed membership? Or what?
(I am not familiar with the working details of IETF WGs).

> Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups on 
> the following five issues might be valuable: a) WG on the definition of
> illegal and harmful content; d) WG on self and co-regulation in 
> internet governance; c) WG on business models for access; d) WG on a 
> development agenda for internet governance; e) WG on open standards.

Just to point at an intrisic difficulty if you have these things not done
bottom-up: By this, you open the fight over what should be in the pipeline
for recommendations and what should not (privacy, anyone?). I can already
hear government delegates crying foul...

The important question remains: Who exactly would make the decisions on
working groups?

Best, Ralf