The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF
Multistakeholder 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 between 1 - 30 September, 2009.



(Markus Kummer)


Dear colleagues,

To follow-up on last week's note, here is the latest update on the status of our
preparation of the draft schedule for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting.

We are progressing with our work on the draft schedule and we will be able to
present it in time to discuss it at the planning meeting. Based on the work so
far, we are confident that we should be able to accommodate all proposals marked
currently in yellow.

As we have received no reaction to our last email, we assume that you are in
general agreement with the proposals we sent on our email from 27 August.

Since then, there have been some new developments:

- Workshop proposal 243 has received a strong support from our Indian friends.
They know the people involved and would like the workshop to take place. We
therefore changed its colour coding to green. - Workshop proposal 101 enjoys the
strong support from our current Host Country - we therefore changed it to green.
- Workshop proposals 292 and 99 are in the process of merging. Once we receive
the final text of the merger we will give a green colour. - Workshop proposals
106, 285 and 312 merged and the final proposal,consolidated and edited under
proposal 106, has been given the green colour. Proposals 285 and 312 were taken
off the list as a result of the merger. - Workshop proposals 311 and 319 merged
and the merged proposal, 319, has been marked green and we took proposal 311 off
the list.

We moved workshop proposal 361 from red to yellow after an exchange with the
workshop organizers, who provided a complete list of speakers and  additional
information. We have also been in contact with the people who proposed the
following workshop proposals, currently colour coded yellow. They are all
committed and they provided us with additional information. Based on this, we
would like to propose that workshop proposals numbers 155, 108, 273, 298, 536,
97, 245, 275,105, 194, 375, 99, 237. 265 and 361 receive a green colour if they
manage to provide us the speaker bios by 15 September.

Please let us know by 10 September if you have any objection to this proposed
way to proceed. Should we not hear from you by then we will assume to have your
tacit agreement and will inform the organizers prior to the planning meeting on
16-17 September.

Best regards Markus


(Writer A)

Thanks Markus for the hard work, I agree with the proposed way.

Regards,



(Writer B)

Thanks Markus.

Things are shaping up well with some very interesting workshops on a wide
variety of topics.

See you in Geneva.

Cheers,





(Writer C)

Dear Markus ,

I am appreciating your great works for making this draft.

Hope to meet you not later!



(Writer D)

Markus,

No objections here and thanks for all of your great work on this!

See you next week,


(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues,

A few lines to explain how we plan to approach next week's meeting. We will
circulate a draft schedule prior to the meeting that will serve as a base for
our discussions. This means that we will look at each slot for each main session
in conjunction with related workshops and other events. One of the aims is to
provide for better linkages between the main sessions and the other events.

By looking at the workshops we should also find suitable speakers for the main
sessions. Our objective is to fill in all the speaking slots at the end of the
meeting, including the moderators.

As we are also trying to improve remote participation, we suggest devoting some
time to discuss how to bring in the remote hubs into our discussions. Focus of
these discussions will be the moderation of the remote hubs and how much time
should be devoted to them. We are working with our host country colleagues on
the technical aspects and we are confident that these will be mastered.

A draft agenda has been posted on our Web site.

Last but not least a a few words on the logistics of the meeting. It will take
place at the European Broadcasting Union (see map on our Web site). There will
be an entrance control and only those who have registered in advance will be
granted automatic access. Please register in advance to facilitate the entrance
control.

There will be wifi and the meeting will be Web cast (video and audio). Those who
cannot make it to the meeting can follow the proceedings via the Webcast and
give remote interventions to the floor. We will give you more details on how
best to teleaccess the meeting the day before.

Meeting schedule for the first day: 10-13 and 15-18 hours. (We may decide to
change the schedule for the following day.)

Best regards Markus



(Writer E)

Markus

Thanks for the updates and logistical details. I will try to follow
deliberations of the MAG remotely and to contribute to the best of my abilities



(Writer F)

Dear Members,

As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary no 3 on The Post-JPA Phase:
towards a future Internet Governance Model, there has been discussion amongst
the European Governments and participants about the role of ICANN and more
accountability of it in terms of Internet Governance Forum. There has a need
been identified for creation of a "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability
and International Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its structure here more
sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the ICANN related issues more
strategically, tactically with a multistakeholder participation within the light
of the Tunis Agenda or if not within this context but then realizing that
although ICANNs constitutional documents and by-laws require it to co-operate
with relevant international organisations and to carry out its activities in
conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable
international conventions and local law, there are no related formal
accountability arrangements and this can be the first step to create this
process.

IGF process needs to be kept separate but interconnected with ICANN (though this
comment is still very vague).

Your suggestions on this proposal would be really useful and multistakeholders
may be facilitated to form such a group to feed into the IGF?



(Markus Kummer)


Dear colleagues,

At the end of business today, we will post a draft schedule for the Sharm
Meeting as a basis for this week's discussions.

We tried to apply the following principles, whenever possible:

Avoid competition of related meetings of all types (i.e. main sessions,
workshops, open forums etc.). Identify workshops that can feed into the related
main session.These workshops are scheduled ahead of the related main sessions;
Identify workshop and best practices forums to follow-up to the related main
session. These workshops are scheduled after the related main session. Respect
wishes of organizers (mainly related to the availability of panellists); Keep
the first afternoon and the last morning free of workshops and other events.

Some workshop organizers have asked for a three hour slot for a 'super workshop'
slot. We told them that this would be discussed and decided this week. To
facilitate scheduling we left an empty slot after some workshops for this
purpose.

There may be some clashes in scheduling  -  we urge all of you to check and let
us know if we need to reschedule any workshop to make it possible for panellists
to attend all their workshops they have been invited to.

Best regards Markus


(Writer G)

I am not positive I remember there was any such need identified at EURODIG ICANN
session.




(Writer H)


I agree with Writer G. Could not see that interest either.


(Writer I)

Mmmm. I was not in the European meeting and of course, anybody is free of having
the initiatives that they think more appropriate, but it makes some noise to me
mainly for 2 reasons:

1) Will we create also dynamic coallitions for ITU accountability, RIRs
accountability, IETF accountability, etc. ? Is this the puropose of IGF?

2) It is supposed that ICANN is a multistakeholder organization, so, creating
this DC seems to be a way of duplicating the processes. I guess that the same
people would participate in ICANN and the DC. It doesn't sound very reasonable.
Same applies to other organizations that also have to be accountable. The idea
of IGF is not to replace the own processes of each organization.




(Writer G)

Dear Writer J,


Could you name a few of the 'very important civil society constituencies and
interests that do not participate in ICANN processes for many structural
reasons'. And also identify these structural reasons.

Also could you provide concrete examples of:'IGF has been seen by many as a
manner of influencing....... in ICANN's work, obtain accountability etc'


Many thanks.


Sincerely,


(Writer K)


Hi All,

First of all, very sorry for not being able to attend geneva meeting today,
however, following remotely.

Concerning creation of a DC concerning ICANN role, I fully agree with Writer K?s
mail.

See no reason to prevent the creation of a ANY DC as long as there are
interested people/organizations to participate.

Regards,ÿ ÿ

(Writer F)


Hello Everyone,

I had posted this possibility to many other lists all related to IGF, ICANN
NCUC, IGCBP and so forth. Till now I see less support of facilitating this
notion mostly by the private sector multistakholders specifically from people
already active in ICANN or serving on the ICANN key committees and see this as
an opportunity for action oriented dialogue on this issue.

Discussing this out with EU civil society and certain other private and public
stakeholders, they would like to join in. We are waiting for some feedback from
African and Asian countries and we will see as a collective how we can go about
this.

I will put together another message after the responses end and see how can we
include this proposal into one of the workshops and get more buyin or understand
why this shouldn't be  good way to go towards more transparency in international
conformity of the ICANN that is crucial to many of the multistakeholders! ÿ



(Writer F)

Before there are any assumptions on this idea, just a clarification, a DC does
not exist without participation of all the member multistakeholders that means
the three key actors: Govts, Private Sector and CS so this all depends on the
multistakeholders whether they want to go this way or not.



(Writer G)

Dear All,

I support Writer L's suggestion for possibly coding of areas of interest.
Possible Interest areas could list or index related Workshops.




(Writer M)

My only concerns in this discussion are these:

1/ it must be very clear that the MAG as an entity is not establishing a dynamic
coalition.  That would establish an unsustainable precedent.  DC's should in my
view rise organically from those interested in working together on a topic.

2/ when talking about ICANN accountability, we need to be factually accurate.
Transparency and accountability mechanisms and modalities continue to be an area
where ICANN is doing a lot of work, through its own open, inclusive,
multistakeholder processes.  Many people, including me, have been actively
involved in contributing to the work by the PSC, and in public discussion.  I
believe that progress is being made.  It is not fast, but that is because the
various participants from different stakeholder groups are actively engaged in
finding the right balance for ICANN.  Of course, it is highly desirable for
people interested in the topic to involve themselves in the processes to be sure
that the ultimate accountability mechanisms do meet the expressed needs.  But
the guidance from Tunis Agenda para 77 needs to be kept in mind.






(Writer N)

All, given the several clarifying e-mails about individual accessibility to
ICANN, it occurs to me that a DC would in fact be an indirect approach to
participation in ICANN.  I don't exactly understand why there would be a
preference to be one step removed from ICANN, rather than directly participating
in it and its ongoing improvement process.





(Writer O)

Hello all,

I feel identified with what Writers J, K and P has expressed. If there are
interested people in discussing a particular aspect there should not be
preventions to create alternative spaces for collective and multi-stakeholder
debate and consensus building.




(Writer B)

Writer N,

Exactly the point I was in the middle of typing!

I'm unclear on the benefit of a DC as opposed to facilitating direct
involvement.




(Writer F)


Agreed Writer M,

The discussion as I mentioned earlier can only be explored by all three members
of the multistakeholdership and they have to explore this in their own space and
time within the IGF so all your comments are very enlightening and helps in
understand what all these misconceptions may be around the issue of
accountability.

Yes, MAG's role is clear, please all, this is only to understand the direction
of all this discussion around accountability and in my own capacity I am just
learning and it also helps us new members of the MAG understand the perspective
of our seniors and experienced peers.

This is once again clarified, this is only learning, no creating the DC, moving
a DC, pushing a DC anything! DC's are made by all three stakeholders as defined
in the definition of Internet Governance!




(Writer G)

Dear All,

The various Teams involved in ICANN restructuring are open to anyone and seek
volunteers (
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?general_osc_work_teams_page )

As Writer F is an NCUC representative to GNSO OSC Communications & Coordination
Team (CCT)which also sought volunteers it may be useful for Writer F and others
to disseminate this informaiton more widely to dispel the notion that work in
ICANN structures is not open to all.

I find the openness instanced above inconsistent with the sentiments being
expressed.

Shall we also then have a DC on GNSO OSC Communications & Coordination Team
(CCT) ?




(Writer F)

Yes Writer G, this is an opportunity! Thank you for sharing.




(Writer R)


Thanks Writer G for bringing this issue. In the GNSO Restructuring process, the
OSC Constituency and Stakeholder group [EDITED] is also open to broad
participation. We have been working since March and will keep on doing our job
for some more months. I agree with those supporting not duplication of
participation spaces. Regards



(Writer S)

The subject is best managed within the community itself



(Writer T)

Hi,

I am getting a bit confused about what we are discussing here.

While the MAG can discuss the merits of a dynamic coalition, it seems to me that
it has no say in its creation. DC are meant to be bottom up processes reflecting
the interest of its members and indirectly, perhaps, the relevance of its topic.
So, if there are enough interested people wanting to form such a coalition, they
can and should go ahead. Who knows, ICANN might benefit from this DC's expertise
and advice.



(Writer U)

Dear Writers G, R and all,

First, I would like to seek your understanding that I cannot participate in the
MAG meeting in person this time. So, thank you for those who bring this issue to
the mailing list.

By observing some of MAG colleagues' arguments in this list on whether IGF's DC
on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity process duplicates ICANN's
restructring or self-evaluation process, I would like to respectfully object to
your concerns.

As you demonstrated here, there are so many conflict of interests between IGF
MAG and ICANN participation that hinders from presenting ICANN at IGF as an
independent topic for discussion at MAG.

As indpendent group, MAG should be more able to bring global public policy issue
like JPA when it is necessary. Unfortunately, ICANN as commissioned contract
party of USG may not be able to handle this issue as independent as we expect
from them.

Therefore, as many of our MAG colleagues including Writers F, J, K, P, O, N
expressed, I would like to make it clear MAG as an advisory institution do not
have rights to prevent from stakeholders' bottom-up efforts of creating a DC on
ICANN Accountability and International Conformity at IGF.

Sincerely,



(Writer J)

Writer S wrote: The subject is best managed within the community itself

Writer S,

Thats a very interesting response/ view. Can you please let me know who and what
is 'the community' that you mention. Thanks.




(Writer G)

Dear Writer U,

Glad that you are participating remotely.

If it is the case that "MAG as an advisory institution do not have rights to
prevent from stakeholders' bottom-up efforts of creating a DC", then this list
should not be used to lobby or give the impression that the MAG or a member(s)
in their official capacity of the MAG render support or otherwise to such an
effort.

Then it is best to keep this matter off this list.




(Writer U)

Dear Writer G and all,

Dear Writer U,

Glad that you are participating remotely.

Hope you have a productive meeting there.

If it is the case that "MAG as an advisory institution do not have rights to
prevent from stakeholders' bottom-up efforts of creating a DC", then this list
should not be used to lobby or give the impression that the MAG or a member(s)
in their official capacity of the MAG render support or otherwise to such an
effort. Would it be more desirable for us to encourage our MAG colleagues'
sharing the updates especially when such updates are cloesly related to our
interests?

Then it is best to keep this matter off this list. So, once again I appreciate
those who informed us of DC activities or even sharing their individual
positions in this list. Shating is always a good thing... My two cents,




(Writer G)

Dear Writer U,

Glad to see that this is hence, not being treated as a MAG discourse or position
but merely anecdotal.





(Writer Q)

Dear Writer T - My view is that a working DC is formed not just by having
"enough interested people", but a composition that also reflects a
multi-stakeholder population.




(Writer U)

Dear Writer G and all,

I understand activities related with DC has been always on the agenda of MAG.




(Writer I)


> > Therefore, as many of our MAG colleagues including Writers F, J, K, P, O, N
expressed, I would like to make it > clear MAG as an advisory institution do not
have rights to prevent > from stakeholders' bottom-up efforts of creating a DC
on ICANN > Accountability and International Conformity at IGF.

I think that everybody agree with this assertion. I don't know why you say that.
I have not seen anybody in the list saying something different.

Please realize that the discussion started because Writer F in his first email
said :

"Your suggestions on this proposal would be really useful and multistakeholders
may be facilitated to form such a group to feed into the IGF? "

So, I think that nobody question the right of any people or organization to
promote the creation of a DC, but if you ask for comments, the most logical
consequence is that you receive comments.




(Writer S)

Hi,

It seems that accountability discussions are best held in the organization with
its stakeholders who it ought to be accountable to.

So, in reference to ICANN one would go to ICANN organization meetings and
discuss with multistakeholder peers there. Likewise if the interest is with ITU
accountability we might make better progress from within ITU community




(Writer J)

Agree Writer I, The comments would have been fine if they were of the nature
that MAG cannot take a view on this and/ or this was not a good place to discuss
this issue of creating/ supporting DCs. However comments were of the nature that
such a possible DC will in fact be inappropriate. It was these set of comments,
which are without rational basis, which is what attracted counter comments on
how there is no reason to say that such a (possible) DC may be in any way be
inappropriate in the IGF framework.

From your email following Writer F's

"It is supposed that ICANN is a multistakeholder organization, so, creating this
DC seems to be a way of duplicating the processes....The idea of IGF is not to
replace the own processes of each organization. "

And David's agreeing with you.

"I  agree with Writer I. This is not warranted as multi-stakeholder
organizations have mechanisms built in for accountability, and ICANN is in the
process of strengthening theirs."

It was these email which attracted my email, and then a series of others on the
subject. I think it was important for us to asset what we did.

regards




(Writer I)

Ok Writer J. I think that the comments were appropriate in relation with the
question posted but if you disagree i respect your view.

Thank you for your comments too.



(Writer L)

Hi everybody,

I find this sudden burst of discussion absolutely fascinating - all the more so
because many of the contributors are actually present in the same room in Geneva
discussing the program for Sharm :-)

The underlying questions are very important though. I see three at least : -
what is the role/nature of Dynamic Coalitions and the conditions allowing or
preventing their creation - what is the role (or rather non role) of the MAG and
its members in discussing the creation of a DC - what is the role of IGF in
addressing issues related to ICANN (and /or any other structure for that matter)
: how active/involved should it be, and how it should articulate with processes
inside ICANN ?

Furthermore, this exchange shows the benefits of a real multistakeholder list on
IGF issues : it just happens that the only one available is the IGF members list
which is actually the MAG Plus list. The IGC list is a great list but it is not
a MS one in terms of people who post, it is a CS list and rightly so. I have
always regretted that the list that was established early on for all IGF
participants was never really used (there is one indeed but I do not have the
address at the moment).

Maybe we could address these issues later on ? However interesting the
discussion is, it is distracting us from the work we have to do here.

Best



(Writer N)

All, I think we are headed an unfortunate direction -- and I say this "with
rationale"  J

First, comments were invited, and I don't think anybody responding and
contributing to the discussion should be faulted or criticized for doing so. The
fact that the comments were not all in agreement does not make any party
irrational, by definition.

Second, it seems appropriate to discuss the pros/cons of creating an alternative
forum to an existing one.  In my first MAG meeting, we spent a good deal of time
agreeing that we should not have sessions focused on topics being explored
adequately elsewhere -- avoid duplication seemed an agreed working principle. It
seems undisputed that the ICANN is now open for participation, subject to
ongoing improvements.  If there are barriers to that, it would be good to
understand what they are -- they should certainly be examined.

Finally, it would seem that the MAG members all know how to participate directly
in the ICANN. However, this can be addressed in the ICANN Open forum at the IGF.
This way, we make sure that the IGF provides interested individuals with info on
how to participate directly in the ICANN process; and those encountering or
aware of barriers to full, direct participation can raise them there for
discussion in the open. Thoughts?



(Writer Q)

I agree discussion should be done in the ICANN Open forum.


(Writer B)

Writer N,

I agree with your very rational suggestion!



(Writer A)

I agree too!



(Writer V)

Writer N, very good, rational and appropriate observation/suggestion......rgds



(Writer C)

I agree with RATIONAL.



(Writer J)

Hi Writer N

Writer N wrote: All, I think we are headed an unfortunate direction -- and I say
this "with rationale"  J

First, comments were invited, and I don't think anybody responding and
contributing to the discussion should be faulted or criticized for doing so. The
fact that the comments were not all in agreement does not make any party
irrational, by definition. No,, surely it doesnt. But I can also express my view
that they dont seem to be rational, cant I :), similar, or perhaps less
problematic to your saying we are headed in an unfortunate direction. We are not
headed in any unfortunate direction, this is  a political space and political
issues, and where needed, politicization of issues, are important and even
necessary.

Second, it seems appropriate to discuss the pros/cons of creating an alternative
forum to an existing one.  In my first MAG meeting, we spent a good deal of time
agreeing that we should not have sessions focused on topics being explored
adequately elsewhere -- avoid duplication seemed an agreed working principle. It
seems undisputed that the ICANN is now open for participation, subject to
ongoing improvements.  If there are barriers to that, it would be good to
understand what they are -- they should certainly be examined. It is my
understanding, contrary to yours, that it is in fact now 'an agreed working
principle' in the IGF that no subjects are off-topic. It is also documented. It
is also significant that this principle primarily got established with regard to
discussing ICANN issues. So the backwards directions   are the one which may be
the unfortunate ones. As per this principle, every IGF space - workshops, open
forums, main sessions, DC, and any other evolution that may come along can be an
appropriate place to discuss any issue falling in IGF's domain, and ICANN's do.
All or any of these spaces can also be specifically structured for this purpose.

What you say above clearly seems to suggest that we should not be discussing in
the IGF (beyond perhaps the ICANN open forum) any ICANN issues, especially,
participation, international conformity etc because they are being discussed
elsewhere. I am very concerned by propagation of this view inside the MAG,
especially since there were a series of aye emails to yours. ( I have said
earlier that i am not advocating the actual creation of the proposed DC - right
now I am agnostic to it, but am discussing the principle you mention.)

But if the above in your belief is the agreed principle, we have already
contravened it as MAG. Pl see the program paper and you will find that we have
already specifically agreed to discuss many ICANN issues.

Now to take one example, US gov may claim that they have a very open process to
comment/ participate in JPA process, and that a discussion at the IGF will be a
duplication. But we have decided to discuss this issue at Sharm, havent we. What
does this do the principle of 'non-duplication' that you have proclaimed, and
others seem to agree.

To enter even more controversial areas, you know that at least one country
claimed at the last MAG meeting that human rights issues are the domain of the
UN HR Council, which at the face of it looks a rational argument,  but many of
us, including those who now in this discussion appear on 'dont duplicate' side
of the argument, argued strongly against this position. We cannot have one set
of principles for some things and other set for others...

Now, say ITU comes out with its own multistakeholder structure, within its
structural parametres (as is with ICANN) will we forgo the right to discuss the
conduct of ITU vis a vis some important Internet policy issues (At least one
email - of  X - suggests that we might as well do so.) I thought IGF was just
the open space to discuss all these issues, and in many different ways.


Or for that matter why the favorite subject of 'connectivity for developing
countries' is not duplication in being largely in national and regional system's
remit, when in any case we consistently and steadfastedly refuse to discuss the
only really global issue in this space - global inter-connectivity regime.

Why all this is not duplication, and ICANN discussions are duplication. I find
it, repeat, very irrational.  Why cannot then governments also say IGF is
useless in being duplicative, and if anyone has issues with any of their
policies they should come through the 'participation systems' the governments
themselves have and run - and believe me almost every policy system have some or
other such structure. Who judges whose 'participation system' is right and fair
- or naturally superior - and whose is not. Many governments do say that many of
the civil society processes - the essence of deepening democracy - are merely
duplicative. Thus I find this 'duplicative' logic very dangerous in being
exclusionary.



Finally, it would seem that the MAG members all know how to participate directly
in the ICANN. However, this can be addressed in the ICANN Open forum at the IGF.
This way, we make sure that the IGF provides interested individuals with info on
how to participate directly in the ICANN process; and those encountering or
aware of barriers to full, direct participation can raise them there for
discussion in the open. Thoughts? It has been said again and again that seeing
IGF as merely an information sharing space is a very technocratic and not
sufficiently democratic take on the IGF. And there is enough written on theories
of participation, structural exclusions etc for me to repeat it all here. But if
one wants to specifically discuss them in ICANN's respect I will be happy to do
so...

Sorry for the long email. Just doing my job :)

regards





(Writer N)

Hi Writer J,

Thanks very much! I too feel the impact of sleepiness.

I think we can agree we are just starting from different perspectives on this
topic.

I do wish to correct one thing in your earlier email.  I did not say that the
topic in question (or any other) could not be discussed in a Dynamic Coalition
or at the IGF writ large; rather, I had actually said that if there are barriers
they should be examined, and then proposed a place on the existing agenda for
the upcoming IGF where a discussion could happen  on ICANN accountability and
transparency (the ICANN Open Forum).

Thank you,




(Writer X)

I am really impressed with this last discussion.  There were so many opinions
that I was able to have my own ?Top 5? list of comments and reactions whose
authors I rather keep to myself.  In any event, I was not going to remain silent
:)

Just my 3 drops of gasoline to the bonfire:

A) I agree with Writer I.  Writer F asked for ?our suggestions? on proposal that
came out from ?discussion amongst the European Governments and participants? at
EuroDIG (not even from him) and he got an overwhelmingly response of ?opinions?.
Nobody should complaint about that.

B) I will try to reduce (if I may) Writer L?s very deep and insightful analysis
on the many questions that Writer F initial email and following replies rise,
simplifying to two underlying issues that were contained in the controversial
original request for opinion:

1)The possibility (based on European Governments discussions) of creating a DC
(multistakeholder by default), and 2)The ?already defined? purpose of such
?potential? DC, that was already identified (I guess by European Governments and
others that participated in such discussions) as the ?role of ICANN and its
accountability in terms of Internet?.  It even was ?baptized? before it was born
with the name of ?DC on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity? with
its brand new acronym ?IAIC?

Writer F?s email apparently generated conflicting opinions, but if you read
carefully, there was not necessarily conflict, but two different discussions on
first, whether to create or not a new DC and, sencondly, what could be the
purpose, scope, rationale, and efficiency of such new DC.  Unfortunately, the
second issue was already conditioned by a ?previous? discussion held by
?European Governments @ EuroDIG? and presented as a sort of ?conclusion?, making
our own discussion much more sensitive and contentious.

3)Building on Writer N?s last mail, let me remind you that when WGIG was
conducting its work (two centuries ago), at a time in which processes,
structures and formats were explored, it was very helpful to identify those
issues that were already handled by other organizations (most of them
inter-governmental)and to discuss the convenience, appropriateness and
feasibility of including any particular issue within the scope of IGF, way
before discussing about ?names?.

Best,




(Writer Y)

Hi all I agree a little with Writer I and as he said it is always the same
people. we should have to define how this DC could work efficiently.




(Writer Z)

FYI

The 2nd Annual WAIGF that is being held 14-16 October 2009, at La Palm Royal
Beach Hotel, Accra, Ghana. The forum will be attended by regulators, academia,
civil society, governments, private sector, the technical community, and other
leaders and stakeholders in the Internet community. This event is open to the
public and will be hosted by the Ghana Ministry of Communications. For more
information http://meeting.afrinic.net/waigf/



(Writer G)

I am sharing this voluntarily just for reference or information for MAG members
that were not in the EuroDIG, please no hard arguments. I just recieved the
following press communique statement from the Council of Europe Directorate of
Communication from after the Eurodig about issues related to Human Rights.

---------- Forwarded message ----------


Geneva, 16.09.2009 ? The protection of human rights, ensuring universal access
to the Internet as a public service and promoting media literacy should be key
priorities for Internet governance in Europe. These were some of the conclusions
of the 2nd European Dialogue on Internet Governance, which brought together 200
representatives from business, governments, parliaments and civil society in
Geneva on 14-15 September.

EuroDIG supported that the Council of Europe, subject to approval by its
governing body, provides the secretariat to ensure the sustainability of
EuroDIG, which should continue to be organised in cooperation with other
organisations and stakeholders, including the European Parliament (EP). The EP
was among the promoters of the idea of an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) at
European level and supported the 1st EuroDIG in Strasbourg.

There was consensus among participants on the importance of maintaining a
multistakeholder approach to Internet governance related issues following the UN
Internet Governance Forum model and the Tunis Agenda (the conclusions of the
World Summit on the Information Society), and that EuroDIG is the ?European
IGF?, where a common European perspective should be discussed and carried to
other fora.

Issues discussed included access to the Internet, online privacy and social
networks, cybercrime, critical Internet resources, net neutrality, the quality
and reliability of content and related issues concerning public service media
and user-generated content, and copyright issues. Media literacy also featured
highly in the discussions.

The event was co-organised by the European Broadcasting Union and the Swiss
Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM), with the support of the Council of
Europe. The multi-stakeholder debates will serve to prepare European
contributions to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which will take place from
15 to 18 November 2009 in Sharm-El-Sheikh, Egypt.

Summaries of the discussions of the workshops can be found at www.eurodig.org

Additional information: The EuroDIG Organisation Network, created in 2008, is an
open and growing group of European stakeholders such as the Council of Europe,
?The Club of Rome ? European Support Centre?, Comunica-ch, DiploFoundation - the
European At-Large Organisation (EURALO), the European Broadcasting Union (EBU),
Euro-NF, the European Parliament, the German Association of Internet Economy,
the Finnish, French, Icelandic and Swiss governments, INHOPE, the International
Chamber of Commerce, INSAFE, ISOC-ECC , Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., NOMINET, Swiss
Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM), SWITCH, United Service Union (ver.di)
and the European Youth Forum.





(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues,

A quick note to update you on the state of play with regard to the programme for
the Sharm El Sheikh meeting.

We are nearly there as regards the schedule - there are still a few changes that
need to be sorted out. Our hosts will print this separately and we will have to
deliver the finalized schedule tomorrow.

The discussions on the main sessions are progressing well and we are nearly
there.

There will be a full printed programme with all the speaker bios and pictures.
This of course includes all the speakers of the main sessions. Our Egyptian
hosts have agreed to extend the deadline for a few days for the full programme.
All bios (around 150 words) we receive by 6 October will be included in the
printed programme.

Any changes made after that date will be reflected on our Web site, but not in
the printed programme.

I hope therefore that we will get all the information in time so that for the
first time in the short IGF history we will have a complete printed programme.

I thank those of you involved in the organization of main session in advance for
your cooperation in securing all the info in time.

Best regards Markus