1-31 May 2009

MAY MAG DISCUSSIONS

 The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group mailing list. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule and separate issues related to logistics and internal procedures. The discussion took place on 1 - 31 May, 2009.

 

Markus Kummer

 

Dear colleagues,

 

I am pleased to inform you that the press release on the renewal of the MAG has been issued by the United Nations in New York:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/pi1880.doc.htm

 

Unfortunately, a sentence thanking the outgoing MAG members for their work and support and for contributing to the success of the previous IGF meetings went missing in the final version. My apologies to the outgoing members and let me express our collective thanks to them.

 

While the press release, less than a week ahead of the next MAG meeting, might seem somewhat short notice, you may appreciate the fact that we were never this early in the short IGF history. In 2006, the press release was issued one day ahead of the May consultations and in 2007 and 2008 the MAG renewal was announced in August.

 

We have approached outgoing and incoming MAG Members informally, to allow them to sort out their travel arrangements. It is always sad to say good-bye to colleagues who are leaving. However, their reactions were very positive and I was heartened by their friendship and their feeling that they had contributed to a 'job well done'. I hope that I express a generally held feeling that we need to make most of the talents of outgoing MAG members at our next annual IGF meetings.

 

At the same time I would like to welcome the new members to our list and look forward to their contribution to the IGF process.

 

 

(Writer A)

 

Dear Markus,

 

Markus Kummer

 

Dear Writer A,

 

The list is available in form of a link at the end of the press release:

 

For a list of new members, please see http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/mag/45-mag-membership/406-mag-2009.

 

Apparently, this is standard policy now: all lists of panels, special groups and advisers get published in that way. The Department of Public Information in New York-the Department responsible for issuing press releases - does no longer attaches lists of names to its press releases.

-

 

 

(Writer B)

 

 

(Writer C)

 

Congratulation to the new members!

 

It was a real pleasure and interesting experience for me working with you all.

 

Thank you Markus and Nitin for your very efficient leadership in coordinating the work of the MAG! I wish you success in the preparation of the upcoming IGF.

 

Markus Kummer

 

 

Dear colleagues,

 

A few practical points to begin with: Please register online for the consultations on 13 May. The names of MAG Members will be in the registration data base and you should be issued a badge for all three days that is from 13-15 May. Please check your badge, as mistakes can happen.

 

For newcomers: the registration is at the main entrance gate - the so called Pregny Gate - just opposite the International Committee of the Red Cross. Please allow for enough time to register and be there well ahead of the meeting, as the queues can be long. Your passport will be required for identification purposes. Showing a print out of your registration form helps speed up the process.

 

The draft agenda for the open consultations (which will also serve as an agenda for the MAG meeting) is available on our Web site.

 

There is also some background material available for the discussions under the various agenda items:

•       A revised version of the programme paper for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting (this paper will be revised once more, taking on board the latest comments.)

•       the list of workshop proposals and proposals for other events

 

(Writer D)

 

Dear all,

 

First, I would also like to welcome our new members of the MAG! 

 

Unfortunately, I have to inform you that I will not be able to attend the upcoming MAG meeting due to my conflicting schedules. […..] is planning to host two day conference on 14 - 15 May.

 

FYI. The following Internet Governance workshop - The Future of Internationalization of Internet Governance - is scheduled on 14 May (90 minutes). 

•       Theme 1: The Future of JPA and Cyber Security Bill (Contracts, Laws)

•       Milton Mueller (Delft University of Technology/Syracuse University)

•       Theme 2: The Future of IGF/ITU and ICANN (Global IG Institutions)

•       Bernard Benhamou (French Ministry)

•       Theme 3: The Future of G2 and the leadership of Internet Governance (State Actors in IG)

•       Viktor Mayer-Schonberger (National University of Singapore/Harvard University)

Hope you have progress during Geneva meetings! Apologies once again for not being able to attend the MAG meeting this round.

 

(Writer E)

 

Dear Markus, dear all,

 

Please find attached an informal contribution tentatively grouping the 124 workshop proposals that have been submitted into a few clusters of similar topics.

 

As indicated on the paper, this is only food for thought in the hope it will facilitate the work of the MAG and help encourage merging of proposals to reduce the overall number in Sharm El Sheikh.

 

I will not be part of the upcoming MAG due to European Union rotation and thought I should share these elements in advance so that they can be taken into account if it is found useful.

 

 

(Writer F)

 

 Dear All,

 Attached is an invitation to a joint APC, COE and UNECE consultation on “A code of good practice on public participation, access to information and transparency in Internet governance."

 Also attached is a summary of David Souter's research report which will form the basis of the presentation and discussion in the meeting. The report reviews the governance, information and participation practices of twelve “entities” primarily or extensively concerned with internet governance;

 Includes assessments of the similarities among and differences between them in five main areas, and identifies significant tensions and challenges to information and participation practice which are posed by the changing nature of the internet. These challenges are discussed in some depth, but are summarized in the form of questions for discussion between the project and the internet governance community.

 There are a number of meetings planned for the lunches but we hope that some of the MAG members will be able to join the workshop.  The venue, time details are agenda are included in the invitation letter below.  Lunch will be provided.

 

(Writer G)

 

Hi Writer F

 

I am already in Geneva for the open consultation and the MAG, and will Participate from APC member Bytes for All and Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor, see u all.

 

(Writer H)

 

Colleagues,

 

 

 

Markus Kummer

Dear colleagues,

 

Please find attached a revised version of the draft schedule for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting, reflecting today's discussions.

 

 

 

(Writer I)

 

Thank you very much.

BTW, thanks to the secretariat for facilitating the remote participation.

 

(Writer J)

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Based on my last intervention regarding deadline, kindly find below more info about the venue hotel in Sharm where you can proceed with your own booking. I would appreciate if you could copy me in your reservation so that I can follow up with the hotel team.

 

 

 

I appreciate as well, if you provide me with your passport details (full name, passport No., Expiry date, etc) so that i can help with your visa issuance.

 

Below are some details about our Sharm event that you may find useful:

 

 

 

* The IGF meeting will be held in Maritim Sharm EL Sheikh International Congress Center; http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/meeting/hotelsearch/sharm-el-sheikh… <http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/meeting/hotelsearch/sharm-el-sheikh…; 

* The headquarter Hotel is Maritim Jolie Ville Royal Peninsula Hotel & Resort; 5 minutes walking distance from the congress center (semi attached) http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/hotels/hotels/jolie-ville-royal-pen… <http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/hotels/hotels/jolie-ville-royal-pen…; 

* The Twin Venue is Maritim Jolie Ville Gold & Resort; 7 minutes by bus from Congress Center; http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/hotels/hotels/jolie-ville-golf-reso… <http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/hotels/hotels/jolie-ville-golf-reso…;

 

 The special rates we got for both hotels are as follows:

 

Peninsula Rates

 

Superior Single/Double Room                        US$   180.00

 

Executive Single/Double Room                     US$   240.00

 

Golf Rates:

 

Standard Single/Double Room                       US$   180.00

 

Pool View Single/Double Room                     US$   210.00

 

Royal Wing Single/Double Room                   US$   240.00

 

Sea View Single/Double Room                       US$   290.00

 

 

v      Above rates are per room , per night on Bed & Buffet Breakfast Basis - inclusive of service

 

Charge & taxes. Internet access is free of charge.

 

v      Above special confidential negotiated rates are for this conference only

 

v      Third Person Supplement for the Rooms Category US$ 20.00 Per Person per night based on Bed & Breakfast Basis.

 

 

 

Children Policy:

 

 

 

* Children under the age of 05:99 years old are free of charge when sharing parent's existing bedding.

* Children from 06:00 till 11:99 years old sharing existing parents' bedding will be free of charge in accommodation and pays 50% of the meals prices:

* Breakfast: US$ 05.00    Dinner US$ 12.00

 

 We will be announcing the above information as well as info about the other 9 official hotels with their special rates soon on the host country website (http://igf09.eg <http://igf09.eg/&gt; )

 

 However, if you want to reserve your own room now in either of the two hotels you could use the following email:

 

######@######## <mailto:####@#########.com>

 

Kindly quote my name and of course the name of the event while reserving. The hotel manager is Mr. ***********, if you want to address your email to him in person.

 

 If you need further help while booking, you may contact one of my team whom I have assigned to back you up in that:

 

Ms. #####  ######: ######@###.####.##

 

 

Ms. #### is a department manager at the international relations division for ITU & WSIS affairs and I am sure she will be able to help you as much as she can.

 

Please accept my best regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

Markus Kummer

 

Dear colleagues,

 

Please find attached a summary report of our meeting, as approved by our Chairman. It is our intention to post it on Monday. Let us know, should you have any comments. Please also check the list of participants and make sure that your name is listed and spelt properly.

 

 

(Writer K)

 

 

(Writer L)

 

Dear Markus,

Many thanks to you and the IGF secretariat team for the rapid summary report!

Attached please find a few suggested edits from me.

 

(Writer M)

 

Dear Markus,

Thanks for the summary; it is very useful to have it right after the meeting.

 

(Writer N)

 

 

Dear Markus:

 

Thank you for this quick summary report. Please, send my appreciation to the whole IGF Secretariat team.

Find attached my few suggested editions. I have also fixed my name.

 

Best Regards,

 

(Writer F)

 

 

(Writer O)

 

Dear Markus,

 

Thank you for your hardworking on this difficult task.

 

 

 

Dear Writer L,

 

I appreciate and understand your views regarding the report but disagree with your deleting of the article 29 as this is clearly stated by many members, including me, in our meeting.

 

 

(Writer B)

Dear Markus, dear all,

 

Thank you for the report. It helped me understanding some of the results of our discussions a bit better. I am fine with the report as is.

 

 

(Writer P)

 

Thank you Markus, for quickly producing a good summary of the just concluded meeting. We appreciate the good work you and the secretariat are doing.

 

(Writer M)

 

 

Dear Markus and team,

thanks again for the report and as Writer B says, if you form groups or need help with the workshops or structuring main sessions, I would like to volunteer for helping.

Best regards

 

(Writer Q)

Thank you Dear Markus and Secretariat, it is a good summary report as I find all the elements included, the meeting was so fruitful.

 

(Writer G)

Dear Markus,

 

 

 

(Writer R)

Dear All,

 

Thanks to the Secretariat for this report.

It is also my understanding that elements from both sections 29 and 31 were discussed at the MAG meeting, as stated in the circulated summary, and are important to be discussed during the session on WSIS principles.

 

 

Markus Kummer

 

Dear Writer G,

 

We have developed a tradition of posting our summary record a day or two after the meeting. The aim of the exercise is to be as transparent as possible and inform all stakeholders on our meeting.

 

As I wrote in our first mail, it was our intention to post the summary on Monday. We will look at all the comments that are in by 1200 hours Geneva time on Monday and reflect them in a revised version, if the comments add value or correct mistakes. However, we will not take on board new suggestions or reflect comments that in fact would distort what was discussed. This is not a negotiated document, nor are we trying to rewrite history. It should therefore not take longer to check the summary for accuracy than it took to write the report.

 

There seems to be a different understanding of our discussions related to the WSIS Principles. I hold the view that the summary is correct (this view was supported by several colleagues). However, the summary can clarify that not all MAG members put the emphasis on the same paragraph. We will do so in the version we are going to publish.

 

 

(Writer B)

 

Hello everyone,

 

Upon further thought I noticed that the discussion on round tables we had yesterday is not mentioned in the report. However, I would find it important for two reasons to have this issue included in the report. The first reason is that the question of more outcome oriented meeting formats played a significant role in the February meetings.  Attentive observers may ask themselves what happened to this important innovation of the IGF.

The second and in my view more important reason is that we should give people the opportunity to comment on our change of mind regarding the round tables.

I haven’t thought about a proper wording but would be willing to propose something if this is would be helpful.

 

(Writer S)

 

Dear Markus:

Thanks for the efficiency in preparing the summary report immediately after the end of  our meeting and our regards to all of the secretariat staff. In reference to para. 3 of the summary report, we have discussed the possibility of preparing written document  that can be IGF 101. Can that be reflected in the summary report.

I would like to join Writer B and Writer M should the secretariat decide to form groups for helping to structure the main sessions.  

[……personal communication deleted………………]

 

I apologize for being that long, but I just wanted to share a happy moment.

 

Regards,

 

 

(Writer G)

 

Dear Markus,

 

 

(Writer FF)

 

I just saw this on the news here in #######. Congratulations! This is 

really good news.

 

Regards

 

(Writer T)

 

Dear Markus and colleagues,

 

First, let me join others in thanking the Secretariat for so quickly and ably preparing the draft Summary Report.

 

Following Writer B’s comment regarding round tables, perhaps it would be helpful to reference that this was discussed?  As I recall, it was suggested that some "innovative" workshops might choose to adopt a round table format and that these could be given preferential treatment (provided that they are also representative).

 

Inclusion of the Internet and sustainable development (and climate change) as a topic was also raised at the MAG meeting.  While this wasn't a significant part of the discussions, perhaps the suggestion that was made of holding a particular session on the topic or including as part of the Keynote Session could be referenced in the Summary Report.  If possible, I would welcome additional feedback from the community on this.

 

As the MAG Summary references a Draft Programme Paper to be issued shortly, it could be helpful to explain how/when this document will be developed further or finalized.  Is it intended that the logistical meetings in September would contribute to its further development, or aspects of it?

 

I would also be glad to assist in the preparation of the main sessions for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting.

 

All the best,

 

Markus Kummer

 

Dear colleagues,

 

Writer B and T raised a valid point. I will add a sentence explaining that we discussed round tables and concluded that it would be premature to introduce this new format at this stage, as it would need to be explored further. I will also flesh out the para on workshops, trying to explain better that merged workshops will be given preferential treatment.

 

The programme paper: this refers to the rolling document that has been with us since the February consultations. We will update it in the light of the consultations/MAG meeting, incorporating also elements of the summary report. As in previous year, the final version will be produced after the September meeting.

 

 

(Writer HH)

 

Encouraging news compa Writer S

 

(Writer U)

 

Thanks Markus for the report of our meeting.

It is very useful and it was a pleasure for me to assist to my first MAG Meeting.

I am also available for help and inputs for the next organization meeting.

All the best and regards.

 

Markus Kummer

 

 

Dear colleagues,

 

The summary report is now available on our Web site. To the extent possible, we have taken on board all your comments. I hope that this version satisfies everybody.

 

The list of participants has been corrected according to your corrections. Please double check!

 

 

(Writer J)

 

Congratulations Writer S... I am of course extra happy for gender reasons:):) one day, we will see more & more Women in workplace:) God help you all...(& us included)

 

(Writer V)

 

Dear Markus,

 

I would also, willing to volunteer to assist in the preparation of the main sessions for the next IGF. 

 

 

(Writer F)

 

 

Dear Markus and All,

 

I am also available to assist with planning main sessions. My interest leans more towards the IG in the light of the WSIS principles session but I am available where-ever you might need support.

 

Best regards,

 

(Writer H)

 

 

Thank you for the excellent report Markus. 

 

And thanks also to Writer S for the excellent news below.  This is a real sign of openness and the success of the new democracy.

 

 

(Writer I)

 

Dear all:

 

Thank you to the Secretariat for the Report.

 

Reading it once again I found one point on which I would like to comment.

 

It is not for changing this Report. It is fine. However it could be considered if the programme paper is updated or anyway it is good just to have it in mind.

 

- In the paragraph about CIR, it is mentioned that "No relevant issue, however contentious, will be excluded from the discussions under this heading"

 

 

(Writer H)

 

(Writer W)

 

Thanks Markus for this complete report.

 

 (Writer X)

 

Markus,

 

 

(Writer Y)

 

(Writer Z)

 

Dear Markus,

Thank you for the excellent job. I would like to support Writer I’s view.

 

 

(Writer AA)

 

Dear Markus,

 

Thank you and the secretariat for all the hard work.

I join others in supporting Writer I’s point.

Please count me also in for any assistance needed in planning the main sessions.

 

 

(Writer O)

 

Dear Writer I and Markus,

 

 

(Writer BB)

Dear All,

 

I understand that Writer I was not proposing to change the report (see highlighted text of his email below), but was bringing a very useful point to our attention for future efforts in the organization of the IGF program generally. 

 

 

(Writer I)

 

Dear Writer O

 

You are right regarding the fact that it was not discussed deeply in our last meeting. It was discussed more in February and I was the one that proposed this sentence which was later referred by the chair many times.

 

(Writer CC)

Dear all,

 

I have the same understanding as Writer AB regarding Writer I's suggestion and totally support it.

Also, I'd like to express my willingness to assist the secretariat in the planning of the main sessions.

 

(Writer Y)

 

 

Markus Kummer

 

Dear colleagues,

 

In the light of the latest discussion with regard to the programme paper, I thought that it might be helpful – not least for the newcomers - to recall the nature and status of the different reports and papers the Secretariat is producing. First and foremost it is important to remember that none of them are negotiated documents. We are trying to capture the essence of our discussions and to give a full picture of all the views expressed. If there are different views on any given subject, the reports make this clear. This also is valid for the Chairmen’s reports at the end of our annual meetings. However, there are elements within the MAG summary reports where we have a general agreement. For the report of last week’s meeting, there is a common understanding on the wording of the proposed agenda as well as the schedule and structure of the meeting. The details will need to be filled in during the coming months, but they will have to respect these commonly agreed parameters.

 

The programme paper in the past was produced by the Secretariat under its own authority to explain the structure, organization and substantive background of the IGF meeting. We produced it as a rolling document, updating it after each meeting and reflecting the discussions held at the open consultations and at the MAG meeting. We always asked the MAG members for their comments before posting it and we intend to do the same also after last week’s meeting.

 

The present discussion relates to one sentence. Writer I made the point that the quote “no relevant issue, however contentious, will be excluded from the discussions” should apply to all themes. When drafting the report after the MAG meeting in February we added this under the heading ‘critical Internet resources’ because the point came up when we discussed this agenda item, which also proved the most controversial. However, the general thrust of the discussions was that this approach should prevail for the entire meeting.

 

When updating the programme paper we have three options:

 

(a) We can put this sentence in a chapeau paragraph as a general principle for the entire meeting

(b) We delete this sentence altogether, as suggested by Writer I as an alternative solution; or

(c) we make it clear that there are different opinions on how this principle should be applied (e.g. “some held the view that this principle should be applied to the discussions of all agenda items, while others believed it should only apply to the discussion of the agenda item ‘managing critical Internet resources’”).

 

All of these options are valid. Option (a) would indicate the openness of the IGF to tackle all issues, however controversial, and it would also faithfully reflect the understanding reached last February. Option (b) would be neutral, but might be interpreted as taking a step backward and that the MAG was afraid of its own courage. Option (c) would have the merit to be transparent as regards the differences of opinion.

 

All in all, option (a) seems to be the most forward looking way of approaching the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. In any case, we will let you comment on the revised version of the programme paper.

 

Last but not least, I would like to thank to all those who volunteered to help with the planning. At this stage it might be premature to form sub-groups for dealing with the various issues, but we intend to do so at a later stage. May I also take this opportunity to ask for suggestions for moderators and panelists for the SOP session? I would have one suggestion for the moderators for the CIR session: Writer B and Y did an excellent job last year and I can’t see any reasons why to change a winning team. I would be interested in having your opinion in this matter and I also hope that both of them would agree to take on this challenge.

 

 

(Writer I)

 

Dear Markus:

 

 

(Writer H)

 

Thank you for this very succinct reminder, Markus.  I have three comments:

1/ with regard to t he statement that "no relevant issue, however contentious, will be excluded from the discussions," I strongly support option (a).  I do so both as a matter of principle, and for purely practical reasons: it is hard to see how moderators or chairs  could stop articipants from introducing issues.  Obviously considerations of good taste and legality (e.g., slander) will have to be observed.  Beyond that, the IGF is to be an open and inclusive process (para. 72 for the scripturally minded) and we need to respect that as a ground rule.

 

2/ I support the suggestion that Writer B and Writer Y be asked to moderate the CIR session.

 

3/ I also volunteer to help with planning the meeting.  I plan to be in Geneva for the September session, and look forward to working with all others.

 

 

(Writer D)

Dear Markus:

 

I would like to add my appreciation to your team for the successful meetings in Geneva. Once again, my apologies for not attending the MAG meeting due to my conflicts of schedules.

 

Reading the Summary Report finally today, I was somewhat surprised by the unclear process of how to conduct IGF Review. According to the draft programme, the desirability of the continuation of the Forum will be discussed on the morning of the last day based on online consultation (July 15 for synthesis paper). 

Based on what Summary Report says, will this review task be handled as a purely managerial matter of the Secretariat by collecting responses from the stakeholders? If so, I have some concerns. I am afraid such approach would exclude the views from those who do not follow IGF closely. If not, your further explanation will be highly appreciated.

 

On the other hand, I understand next week's CSTD meeting is to evaluate the Follow-up WSIS. Does it also include IGF? If so, how will CSTD's activities be associated with IGF Review process down this road? 

 

Am I missing some discussion in the corridor that already plans some master plan for IGF Review? Wouldn't it be right timing to open up MAG's discussion on how to conduct IGF Review? Will it be reasonable to allocate one day for IGF Review in September?

 

 

(Writer M)

Dear Markus,

Thanks for your message.

 

1) About the options for updating the programme paper, I support option (a)

 

 

(Writer DD)

 

Hi Markus,

I too would be willing to volunteer for any of the main sessions, especially the one on WSIS implementation (for obvious reasons!)

 

 

(Writer L)

 

Dear Markus,

I join others in supporting (Writer B and Y) as moderators for the CIR session if they are willing.

 

 

(Writer DD)

Hello Markus

 

 

(Writer G)

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Please forgive my newcomer nature in the MAG but I have been confused from the Open Consultations to the MAG meetings that we continuously brought up the issue about Internet Governance for Development or simply IG4D to identify the link between IG and Human sustainable development and provide the practical grounds for WSIS Principles to be embodied in the IGF and move towards create reference for member countries and multi-stakeholders to benefit from.

 

Somehow to my feeling, there was no notice taken of this suggestion and I am aware that in the past there have also been similar suggestions, my confusion remains that why hasn't this been taken into consideration as well as not depicted in the MAG Summary whereas many members backed the idea and there was also a suggestion to split the WSIS Principles session into two and create the discussion space for IG4D?

As Civil Society stakeholders of the MAG, I continue to reinforce my suggestion on IG4D and continue to request the secretariat to depict IG4D within the summary even though I am aware that the secretariat might not do it in this summary.

 

Secondly, I would again like to bring up the Rights issue that this was an important point embodied in the WSIS Principles to respect the UN Human Rights declaration where Communication is a Basic Human Right even though after continuous suggestions by the Civil Society members on the MAG has not received its presence in the document. This is not against any UN, IGF or multilateral governance model?

 

It states in Article no 1 that:

"We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, declare our common desire and

commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the

United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

 

The above is a politically, multilaterally and collaboratively agreed upon WSIS Declaration Principle and despite intensive discussions, has not been embodied?

 

Article 2 states that:

"We reaffirm the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, as enshrined in the Vienna Declaration. We also reaffirm that democracy, sustainable development, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as good governance at all levels are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. We further resolve to strengthen respect for the rule of law in international as in national affairs."  along with this I can go on and on with the WSIS declaration but my  point is that doesn't Civil Society suggestion hold any value and can it not be depicted in the summaries?

 

 

 (Writer X)

 

Markus,

 

Thank you for the clarification, it is much appreciated.  Regarding the options, I would strongly support Option A for the very reasons you identified. 

 

(Writer G)

 

Despite my confusions, I also volunteer to be part of organizing the activities

 

 

(Writer V)

 

Dear Markus,

 

 

Writer Y

Greetings Markus,

 

 

(Writer O)

 

Dear Markus,

 

I respect your trying to deal with this issue but have different opinion with the way you did it.

 

1 The discussion on substantive issues in MAG meeting has been over as Chairman Desai concluded in May meeting. Write GG has made a proposal in May meeting that the document be put on web for a few more days open review, unfortunately this proposal was rejected by Chairman. What you suggested falls within the proposal of Writer GG. How could we follow your proposal while regardless of the ruling of the MAG Chairman?

 

2 This issue is not the organizational issues that the MAG chairman has asked the IGF secretariat lead to do.

 

(Writer EE)

Dear Markus

 

Thank you for the excellent job that is being done by you and the Secretariat to document and clarify the process so that everyone is on the same page.

 

I would support option A.

 

I also volunteer to help with organizing and conducting the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh and plan to attend the meeting in September in Geneva.

 

 

 

(Writer FF)

Last but not least, I would like to thank to all those who volunteered to help with the planning.

 

I am, specifically with history from last year, interested and available to help with Access issues. Specifically towards localization, as brought up by Writer II at our meeting previous week.

 

I strongly agree with this, and would also encourage a recommendation to leaders of other sessions to study how the CIR session was run in Hyderabad, and they should learn from it. Not copy, we need innovation and should try new things, but...I really liked it. And people should know about how that was done.

 

This I specifically say as one of the persons that had one of the sessions that where one of the largest failures in Hyderabad. Having leaders of the session brought in without any knowledge or much planning beforehand, increase the risk of non successful sessions.

 

 

Markus Kummer

 

Dear colleagues,

 

Many thanks for your quick feedback.

 

There seem to be some persisting misunderstandings.

 

Writer G raised the question of development. We all agree that this is an important issue. However, the summary report of the MAG meeting does not recall the entire discussion, but nails down what was the outcome of our discussions. The development aspects deserve to be fleshed out more in the coming months. The heading "Internet governance in the light of the WSIS principles" leaves enough room and flexibility for that.

 

Writer D asked for clarification with regard to the review process. There was a general understanding last February that the "formal consultations" will take place in Sharm El Sheikh. They will be chaired by a senior UN official from UNHQ in New York. These consultations will be prepared in an online process and all stakeholders are encouraged to submit their comments, either by responding to the questionnaire we have posted or by sending in free form comments. All contributions received will be summarized in a synthesis document that will be submitted in all six UN languages as an input into the consultations, so that participants have some 'food for thought' they can comment on. Contributions received after 15 July will still be posted. The preparatory process does not prejudge the consultations that will take place in Sharm. The Secretary-General will make his recommendations "on the desirability of the continuation of the Forum" based on the consultations in Sharm, as stipulated by the Tunis agenda.

 

Finally, Writer O picked up a suggestion made by Writer AG, namely that the summary report be posted for a few more days for an open review. We did not take up this suggestion and stuck to our standard procedure that is we made the summary report available as soon as possible after the meeting, as was requested by many stakeholders some time back. This was seen as a means to enhance the transparency of our proceedings. However, the process we are engaging in is precisely what Miguel suggested. As a MAG newcomer he may not have been that familiar with our way of functioning. In the past, we always proceeded by posting the MAG summary record first and then revised the programme paper. We have produced such a paper since the beginning of the IGF in 2006, revised it regularly, first within the MAG and then posted it, with a request for comments from all stakeholders. This is well within the parameters of past practice and we will do so also this year. We have frozen the agenda and the structure and schedule of the meeting. We now need to flesh out this framework and discuss the operational aspects, which include both organizational and substantive issues.

 

I hope this clarifies the way forward somewhat.

 

Next week we will circulate the revised programme paper and ask for your comments.

 

Last but not least: may I ask the new MAG members to send us a short narrative bio of around 100-150 words (to [email protected]) and all members to send us corrections, as necessary.

 

 

(Writer HH)

Sorry for intervening, as I am no longer advisor in any capacity, but since the MAG is an advisory group, not a decision-making group (this is the meaning of the "A" between "M" and "G"), and since the Chair is aware of this thread of discussion, as of course the secretariat is in regular touch with him, isn't it just a matter of asking the Chair if it is possible to make this small modification?

The closing of the document is not a like a decree-law in this case, and the Chair is sovereign in

 

(Writer S)

 

Dear Markus:

Thank you for your suggestions.

1) I support option (a) to update the program paper.

2) I support the suggestion for Writer B and Y to be the moderators of the CIR session.

 

 

(Writer H)

 

Dear Writer G and colleagues,

 

I confess to being a bit confused as well about the issue of Internet Governance for Development.  Because development is a cross cutting theme and also a theme that I am concerned about both personally and professionally, I am predisposed to seeing it get emphasis in the IGF,  as I have said many times when speaking in favour of bringing  development angle to the forefront in discussions of other topics.   But I think we have more work to do as a MAG to bring ourselves down from the abstract level of principle to defining what is actually meant by IG4D.

 

Here's my problem:  As I try to figure out what it might mean I come  up with things like Governance models for regulators to help to create  investment- and innovation-friendly regulatory regimes with the goal  of expanding access and network development.  It could mean discussion of governance issues around keeping the Internet open, and promoting innovation (either the prosaic R&D kind or other).  It could be emphasizing the fundamental design principles of the Internet, like the end-to-end principle that is needed for development.  But each of those could be handled under existing themes.

 

So to be clear, I am happy to work with others to improve the focus, and I do strongly support the IGF being proactive in promoting development issues and capacity building.  However, let's be sure we are agreed about the direction we're taking so we don't cause confusion for others.

 

 

(Write JJ)

 

 

Hi Markus,

 

Thank you for the secretariat’s prompt work on the program paper and the discussion that’s followed. I would like to apologize for not having been able to be present at the entire MAG meeting, but the summary report shows it was a good discussion, and while I was able to be at the meeting, welcomed very much also the input from the new MAG members.

 

With regard to your note below, I support option (a), believe it shows willingness to as you outline to tackle all issues. I would also support the proposal of the moderators for the CIR session of Jeannette and Chris.

 

I do plan to be to the session in September and am happy to be available for any subgroups for purposes of preparations. 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

 

(Writer O)

 

Dear Markus,

 

I found the discussion interesting and helpful for both the newcomers and veterans.

 

1. One of our topics is how to deal with the proposal made by Writer I. Shall it be taken on board and inserted into the output of May meeting? Answer is not. Indeed, Writer Is  question has been raised in MAG February meeting. In that meeting, Writer D and I and many other MAG members proposed that under the CIR session the issues of JPA and IANA contract shall be discussed. This proposal was strongly opposed by Writer I, Y, H, and KK. Their reasoning was that JPA and IANA issues are very contentious, if they were open for discussion, then various different views will emerge and will mislead the public. After a long debate in February meeting, they did agree that under this theme, no topic, however contentious, should be excluded from the discussions. This is a principle only applicable for the sub-themes selection of CRI, and was written into the draft program paper for discussion in May MAG meeting. For other sessions, no MAG member has used the excuse of “contentions” to stop the discussion of a particular sub theme, and certainly there is no need to apply this principle to the other sessions. Writer I, Y, H all have participated in May meeting, discussed the draft program paper, and made no disagreement with this particular sentence, which certainly has shown their agreement with that. Now, under the unparamount leadership of Mr. Desai and with the wisdom of all the MAG members, based on the draft program paper, we have achieved a packet agreement on the program of Sharm El Sheikh meeting. This packet agreement is a balanced agreement, as you said, is a solution that makes everybody equally unhappy. But now, Writer I wanted to come back, break the balance, and select one particular issue out of the overall packet and means that he would disagree with what he has agreed. Writer I wants to come back with a particular item, certainly a lot of other MAG members would like to come back with a lot more items. Fortunately the MAG Chairman has ruled out that possibility. We shall respect what we have achieved in May meeting.

 

2. Regarding the treatment taken by the Secretariat on Writer I proposal, whether the Secretariat have the authority to seek the advice of the MAG on the issues substantively related to the program, and then update it in the program paper with its own authority accordingly? My personally view is not. The secretariat and the MAG are two very important and close related, but totally different organs of the IGF. And the Executive Director of IGF Secretariat is different with the MAG Chairman. MAG members are designated by the UN SG, under the leadership of Mr. Desai, to provide service, the advice on the program of the IGF meeting, to the UN SG. We have no responsibility and obligation to provide our advice to the IGF Secretariat. And the Secretariat has no authority to change the packet agreement of the May MAG meeting through its calling of seeking advice from MAG members.

 

3, As Mr. Desai has ruled, the public and MAG consultation on the program of Sharm El Sheikh meeting has been over. He will then report the MAG advice to the UN SG, and UN SG will then announce the program of Sharm El Sheikh at his own discretion based on but not rigidly the same with the MAG advice. The secretariat can then do the organization work based on and within the framework of the program set by the UN SG. The Secretariat can seek public advice on how to organize the meeting. Certainly, the public includes those persons in MAG. But remember that MAG member has no responsibility to provide advice to the IGF secretariat, and the view from the particular MAG member on the organization issues doesn't and needn't represent the overall MAG views.

 

 

(Writer LL)

 

Dear Mr. Markus,

Thank you very much for the latest clarification. I support option (a), as it shows a willingness to tackle all issues. I would like also to support the proposal of the moderators for the CIR session of Writer B and Y as last year meeting.

 

(Writer Y)

 

 

Greetings All,

 

Thank you, Writer O, for your characterization of the events leading up to the current debate regarding the statement that ‘no relevant issue, however contentious, will be excluded from the discussions’. I don’t agree with several things that you have said.

 

It is correct to state that there was considerable debate about the JPA as a topic at our February meeting (I do not recall the IANA contract being mentioned). The debate took place in the context of listing a discussion of the JPA as a specific sub-heading under CIR in the IGF agenda (as we did last year with ‘Transition IPv4/6’ and ‘Global, Regional and National Arrangements’). My view was that it was inappropriate to list it because we could not know what the position would be by the time of our meeting in Egypt given that the current JPA expires in September. Indeed I recall you saying that in the ‘unlikely event’ that the JPA was not renewed you would be happy for the agenda to be amended even at that late stage. I did also raise the issue of whether given the WSIS principles, the JPA was something relevant for discussion in the IGF but I was quickly persuaded that it was. I was not concerned in the slightest that the issue might not be contentious nor that the public might be misled.

 

During the discussions the point was made (I think by Nitin Desai) that given the nature of the IGF and the way the main sessions are run, it would be impossible to stop people from raising whatever topic they wished and if it was relevant, discussion should be allowed. This was raised as a general point and was not in any way limited to the session on CIR. I accepted this overarching principle but maintained my objection to actually listing the JPA as a sub-heading. It was then suggested that we could solve the problem by having no specific sub-headings but by making the statement that no relevant topic/issue would be excluded. I was happy to agree to that especially given that it is, in any event, an overarching principle.

 

So, for clarity, the possibility of a discussion of the JPA being contentious was NEVER a reason for my concern and was not used as ‘an excuse to stop the discussion of a particular sub-theme’. I maintain, and always have, that the IGF should deal with all relevant issues no matter how contentious. Anyone is welcome to argue an issue should not be discussed because it is not RELEVANT but if it IS relevant then its contentiousness is of no consequence.

 

It is, with respect, a spurious argument to suggest that as this discussion has not taken place regarding other sessions, there is no need to make the statement with respect to those sessions. The principle that ‘all relevant issues can be discussed’ either applies to all IGF sessions or it does not. If it is felt necessary to make the statement at all then it should be made in respect to ALL sessions, not just one. 

 

Cheers,

 

(Writer O)

 

Dear Writer Y,

 

 

I would expect that you have different views with me especially on CIR, and I would have the pleasure to remind you that the sentence you mentioned is in the program paper prepared by the

Secretariat and in the agenda of the open consultation and MAG meeting. (Though May meeting

didn’t have agenda, we should follow the previous meeting’s that did include the program

paper in the agenda). I remember that you have participated the May meeting and made no

objection to this sentence. That shows your agreement to it, which is in a packet agreement

that we have achieved in May meeting. Now surprise to me is that you would like to break

this particular item from a packet that you have agreed. Does that mean that other MAG members could also break another particular item from the packet what we have agreed?

If you do not mind, may I at least point out one of your memory loss, that the issue

of IANA contract has really been discussed in February MAG meeting. I understand that we

have different views regarding CIR, sometimes in opposite directions. That's also why last

year when selecting the moderator for CIR session, some MAG members opposed you saying that

you have biased opinions. This year maybe we also would have the same concerns.

 

 

(Writer Y)

 

Hi Writer O,

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The purpose of my email was to:

a)    Correct some assumptions you had made as to my position expressed in February and since;

b)    Explain that I am happy for the statement to remain in the document;

c)    Explain why I support Markus’ suggestion a) that it be included as an umbrella statement (as I had previously expressed in a very short email to the list).

I am more than happy to accept that the IANA contract was discussed in February. I simply said that I do not recall it.

I don’t think that our differing views on CIR have anything whatsoever to do with this discussion.

 

Markus Kummer

 

 

 

Dear Writer O, colleagues,

 

Many thanks for your response – it may indeed be helpful to hold this discussion to clarify matters.

 

I got in touch with Mr. Desai to discuss the broad of the issues you raise. He approved of the message I sent out last Friday and of the explanations below. He adds that he feels this discussion should now end.

 

First and foremost, I have to repeat that neither the summary record of our meeting nor the programme paper is negotiated outcome documents where everybody agrees on every word. The summary records are documents that are produced quickly and take on board comments made shortly after the meeting. They are the basic input into the programme paper, which is conceived as a rolling document that gets reviewed regularly with the input of the MAG and IGF stakeholders.

 

The agreement we reached refers to the wording of the agenda and the programme schedule, but not to the wording of the programme paper. The MAG Chairman gave the explicit mandate to the Secretariat to work on the notes for each session and the summary record of the MAG meeting reflects the fact that the programme paper would be reviewed.

 

As regards Writer Is  suggestion, I can only repeat what I said before. You are right of course insofar that the issue came up in context of the discussion on critical Internet resources. This is the reason why in the summary report I drafted, it was mentioned under this heading. However, the general thrust of the discussion was that it should apply to the entire meeting. Your assertion that this is a principle only applicable for critical Internet resources fails to capture the full breadth of the discussions.

 

Your question with regard to the role of the Secretariat is also helpful, as it might help to explain our functioning. You are right in stating that the Secretariat and the MAG have totally different functions and that my role is different from that of the MAG Chairman. You are also right in recalling that MAG members are designated by the United Nations Secretary-General, under the leadership of Mr. Desai, to advice him on the programme of the IGF meeting. However, the IGF Secretariat is part of the UN Secretariat. I was appointed by the Secretary-General and I act on his behalf. We operate under the umbrella of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and report back to UNDESA. The advice the MAG provides to the UN gets channeled through the Secretariat. This means that de facto the MAG provides advice to us which we pass on to UNHQ.

 

There is no need for the MAG to provide advice based on unanimity. As we have done in the summary records, also the programme paper can make it clear that different views are held on different issues. This enhances transparency. As regards the issue you raise in your email, I mentioned three different equally valuable alternatives. Option (a) seems to have a fairly strong support, but I am ready to make use of option (b) or (c). You will be given the opportunity to comment on the revised programme paper.

 

I have reported back to New York the advice provided by the MAG as regards the agenda and schedule of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. This part has been frozen. We will now have to flesh out the programme and it is our intention to do this according to our standard operative procedure, which is by seeking the advice of the MAG first and a wider group of stakeholders thereafter, as we announced in the summary record. It would be awkward to change this procedure and I do not think that this would be appreciated neither by the broader community of IGF stakeholders nor by my superiors in New York.

 

As regards the “formal consultations", we discussed this matter in Hyderabad and at the consultations last February. Of course, our Egyptian hosts – the IGF Chair for this year – also take a close interest in the matter. They made it clear from the very beginning that they did not want this issue to overshadow the whole meeting. The summary record of the February meeting states the following:

 

“The morning of the last day will be reserved for the “formal consultations with Forum participants” on the “desirability of the continuation of the Forum” as stipulated by Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda. These consultations will be prepared by an online process in advance of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting, starting with a questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat and a rolling document synthesizing all commentaries received and posted on the IGF Web site.”

 

Nobody objected to this. It is also the understanding of the UN in New York that the formal consultations can only take place at the annual IGF meeting itself. Nobody can prevent informal consultations taking place elsewhere. However, the Secretary-General’s report to the UN membership will only reflect the comments made at the session on the last morning of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting.

 

 

(Writer MM)

 

 

Dear MAG colleagues,

I had some problems with my recent email box transition due to the HP-EDS organizational integration. It is fine now. Pl this new email address for future correspondence.

 

Markus, I am happy to be involved in the organization of the forthcoming IGF in Egypt, particularly with the “security, privacy and openness" session.

If need be and schedule permitting, I plan to attend the Sept MAG program meeting.

 

(Writer O)

 

 

Dear Markus,

 

Thanks for your response and kind clarification. This really beneficial to our working and it may be helpful to clarify a few more issues.

 

Quote " Your question with regard to the role of the Secretariat is also helpful, as it might help to explain our functioning. You are right in stating that the Secretariat and the MAG have totally different functions and that my role is different from that of the MAG Chairman. You are also right in recalling that MAG members are designated by the United Nations Secretary-General, under the leadership of Mr. Desai, to advice him on the programme of the IGF meeting. However, the IGF Secretariat is part of the UN Secretariat. I was appointed by the Secretary-General and I act on his behalf. We operate under the umbrella of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and report back to UNDESA. The advice the MAG provides to the UN gets channeled through the Secretariat. This means that de facto the MAG provides advice to us which we pass on to UNHQ. " End

 

Comments: The MAG provides its advice to the UN SG through the Secretariat, where the Secretariat should be a transparent channel, collecting the views and preparing the report which shall faithfully reflect the agreement we achieved in MAG meeting. I would be glad to be informed that your message sent out last Friday has got approval from the MAG Chairman, because only the MAG Chairman has the authority to call on the MAG members on the substantive issues concerning the program. As Mr. Desai has agreed with your message, I would like to ask you to convey my personal question that, as a principle of equal and openness, whether other agreed items in May meeting can also be reopened for discussion.

 

 

Quote: "I have reported back to New York the advice provided by the MAG as regards the agenda and schedule of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. This part has been frozen. We will now have to flesh out the programme and it is our intention to do this according to our standard operative procedure, that is by seeking the advice of the MAG first and a wider group of stakeholders thereafter, as we announced in the summary record. It would be awkward to change this procedure and I do not think that this would be appreciated neither by the broader community of IGF stakeholders nor by my superiors in New York. "  End

 

Comments: In May meeting, we have not only discussed the agenda and schedule, but also the sub-themes and format, and also the principle such as Writer I's question. These are also the part that needs the MAG's advice and has been frozen. I also doubt what will be done in your work referred to as the "fleshing out the program". As MAG Chairman has instructed, next step is the Organizational work carried out by the Secretariat, and should be open to all stakeholders, not limited to the MAG members. And in September, the meeting will not be MAG meeting, while it should be called Organizational Meeting. Does Writer I's question belong to the so called "fleshing out the program"? As this year we have changed our September meeting, I'd like to urge the Secretariat to change its procedure accordingly. As Mr. Desai has ruled in May meeting, that the MAG members are not responsible for the Organization issues, which should be done by the Secretariat under the principle of the agreed output of MAG meetings.

 

Quote:” The morning of the last day will be reserved for the "formal consultations with Forum participants" on the “desirability of the continuation of the Forum” as stipulated by Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda. These consultations will be prepared by an online process in advance of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting, starting with a questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat and a rolling document synthesizing all commentaries received and posted on the IGF Web site.” Nobody objected to this. It is also the understanding of the UN in New York that the formal consultations can only take place at the annual IGF meeting itself. Nobody can prevent informal consultations taking place elsewhere. However, the Secretary-General’s report to the UN membership will only reflect the comments made at the session on the last morning of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. " " End

 

Comments: We agree that the morning of the last day will be reserved for the "formal consultations with Forum participants" on the "desirability of the continuation of the Forum", but it has never been agreed in MAG meeting that the  "formal consultations" only limited to the session. Anyway, the UN SG can have its own discretion to select the method of the "formal consultations".

 

 

(Writer NN)

 

 

Dear colleagues:

 

I share Writer H problem here.  I understand very well ICT4D and the need for, as an example, telecommunications regulatory frameworks to encourage investment in broadband development and deployment.  I find it difficult to see as clearly how Internet Governance as such intersects

with development issues.  I do see the need to ensure that developing countries and, perhaps especially, small island developing states (notably in the Pacific), are able to participate appropriately in IG,

which is, of course, related to capacity building.  To this end, I look forward to working with others towards a Pacific regional IGF.  But perhaps I am overlooking something important about the role of IG in development?

 

 

(Writer O)

 

 

Dear Writer NN, dear colleagues,

 

I think there are many aspects of IG related with development.

 

Perhaps if we review again some paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda we may find answers to these aspects.

It is clear that all countries present in Tunis agreed that Internet Governance is an essential element for a development oriented Internet:

31. We recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centered, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society. .....

And the IGF mandate indicates that public policies should be discussed to foster the development of the Internet:

72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:

Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet.

Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.

I am convinced that the real advantage of the IGF is its multi-stakeholder structure and that it allows all actors talk to each other on an equal footing, especially in those "issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body".

We may find together these issues that, in my modest opinion, when not properly discussed and addressed may be problematic for the growth of Internet in developing countries. I mentioned one example during the MAG meeting, a law project that establishes a tax to all devices that have a memory; this will raise device’s prices which is a barrier to access. I am sure that we may find many other examples like this.

 

Markus Kummer

 

Dear colleagues,

 

It seems that we may have created some confusion with regard to our working methods and procedures, especially among MAG newcomers. I had several private exchanges in this matter and realize that we need to be clearer in defining the different roles and responsibilities of MAG and Secretariat. I will try and put something on paper in the next few days and will circulate it on the list.

 

Meanwhile, I am happy to report that we have cleared some of these misunderstandings and can now focus on the revision of the programme paper.

Maybe we could add a sentence as a general principle for all IGF participants, emphasizing the openness of our proceeding without directly inviting them to look for controversy.

My suggestion would be as follows:

 

Quote: Participants may bring up any relevant issue related to the theme of the session, as long it is done in a respectful manner, without singling out individuals, companies, institutions or countries. Unquote

The rest of the programme paper would stand in the form we circulated it yesterday.

Would this be a fair description of our general understanding of how to approach the Sharm El Sheikh meeting?

 

(Writer L)

 

Dear Markus and colleagues,

I also think the general principle approach is useful. I support Writer BBs suggested idea below.

“I think the suggestion for the general principle approach is very useful.  Only if further helpful, I would make the suggestion that this general principle language focus also on the moderators, rather than just the participants. So that it would read:

 "moderators should allow comments or questions from participants on  any relevant issue related to the theme of the session, as long it  is done in a respectful manner, without singling out individuals,

companies, institutions or countries."

Its broader focus encompasses a moderator's responsibility as well. If this idea will cause more trouble than it’s worth, please feel free to disregard.”

 

 

(Writer R)

 

 

Dear All

 

I wonder if the secretariat and the MAG members will want to consider the possibility that  the following sentence in the program paper may not set up very stringent limits to the dialog, and that it may become a permanent precedent for all the future IGF discussions.

 

Quote: Participants may bring up any relevant issue related to the theme of the session, as long it is done in a respectful manner, without singling out >individuals, companies, institutions or countries. Unquote

Many interventions during the IGF use names of companies, countries and institutions in a manner that is essential to the statement or argument. We have also seen such names used in all kinds of UN For instance, I find it difficult to  see how a session on  social networking applications can proceed without bringing up the name of one company or the other.

I am afraid that in the future such a provision as the above may get used by companies, countries and institutions to block legitimate discussions.

Can we instead just say something like ".... as long as it is done in manner that is objective and respectful to all the parties involved."

 

This is for your consideration.

 

 

 

(Writer BB)

 

 

Dear Markus (and MAG colleagues),

 

I think the suggestion for the general principle approach is very useful.  Only if further helpful, I would make the suggestion that this general principle language focus also on the moderators, rather than just the participants. So that it would read:

 "moderators should allow comments or questions from participants on

> any relevant issue related to the theme of the session, as long it

> is done in a respectful manner, without singling out individuals,

> companies, institutions or countries."

>

 

Its broader focus encompasses a moderator's responsibility as well. If this idea will cause more trouble than it’s worth, please feel free to disregard.

 

 

I think respectful is a key point, and hope we maintain it.

 

I suggest, however, that the view of what is “objective” in the context of IG may be colored by the perspective of the individual.

 

Finally, I would hope we could talk about issues without referring to a specific company, individual or country; I believe the goal is to discuss practices or issues and their relevance with all stakeholders in the room, not just the ones that agree.  Therefore, if we risk enabling environments that completely discourage countries, companies or individuals from attending or participating in these open forums, we can lose that possibility.  It should be in our interest to provide an environment that encourages a good discussion with the full range of stakeholders – those that agree and those that don’t.  And this may be more relevant to countries and companies, rather than individuals – that’s my personal perspective.

 

 

Markus Kummer

 

Dear colleagues,

Writer R raised an interesting point and Writer BB gave an excellent answer. I fully agree with her, 'respectful' is the key word. Maybe singling out is not the right term, but I think we all agree that we want to avoid personal, ad hominem attacks and 'naming and shaming' as much as we want to avoid product placement. While it would not be appropriate for a panelist representing Company X to praise the products and services of Company X as a solution to the problems under discussion, it would not be appropriate for participants in the dialogue to attack Company X for alleged malpractices.

We only once rejected a paper to be posted, that was when someone promoting free and open source software specifically referred to a major vendor of proprietary software as a source of all evil. We managed to convince the author to rewrite this and to have a more generic reference to proprietary software. I think this base rule can also apply to our discussions. Jennifer's formulation - to discuss practices and issues relevant to stakeholders - deserves to be retained in the programme paper as a general guidance. As Writer R points out, there may be instances when it might be justified to deviate from this rule, but in general terms I think it should be possible to discuss practices and issues without mentioning names of companies, countries, institutions or individuals.

I also think that Writer BB suggestion, with regard to the role of the moderator, is very helpful.

 

(Writer L)

 

Dear Markus, dear colleagues,

 

Attached please find suggested edits to the programme paper which attempt to clarify certain items for public participants who were not part of the consultation and MAG meetings.

 Hope these suggestions are helpful.

 

(Writer R)

 

Markus, thanks for the program paper.

 

Writer L thanks for your edits which are all very useful.

 

May I however suggest that we keep the focus of the emerging issues session on social networking/ web 2 (as in the draft circulated by Markus) instead of it being just one of the subjects (as per your suggested edits). In my understanding this is also as per the discussions in the MAG meeting. We have only one hour and a half and the policy issues and challenges in this area are huge, whereby a good focused session can be quite useful.

 

 

(Writer I)

 

 

Dear Markus et al.

 

Your paper is very good. It is very acceptable for me.

 

Few comments:

 

- I agree with Writer R comment regarding the fact that the most important is that any reference to any company or country should be made in a very respectful way. I have seen many references to 

Companies and countries in the past IGFs and in most of cases it was very well managed. I can live with your wording if it is the result of firm requests from some countries, but i think that Writer R suggestion is much better.

 

- Most of Writer L suggestions are acceptable. Regarding the definition of the emerging issues session, i very much prefer the original wording from the secretariat. As I said in the last meeting (and in many others) social networks is currently the most challenging issue for the internet users around the world. It has many implications in the life of the people, especially young people. It should be the main topic in that session.

 

 

 

Markus Kummer

 

 

Dear colleagues,

A quick line to recall that the focus of the 'emerging issues,' session was fixed at the MAG meeting. As recorded in the summary report.

 

(Writer Z)

 

Dear Markus,

 

 When updating the programme paper we have three options:

 

I support option (a) as the others. I just wanted to say, that I also support Writer B and Y as moderators for the CIR session. And I volunteer to help with the sessions, and I will be at the meeting in September.

 

 Last but not least, I would like to thank to all those who volunteered to help with the planning. At this stage it might be premature to form sub-groups for dealing with the various issues, but we intend to do so at a later stage. May I also take this opportunity to ask for uggestions for moderators and panelists for the SOP session? I would have one suggestion for the moderators for the CIR session: Writer B and Y did an excellent job last year and I can’t see any reasons why to change a winning team. I would be interested in having your opinion in this matter and I also hope that both of them would agree to take on this challenge.