We are late with proposals for nominations for the Working Group on
Internet Governance Caucus.
Really very little time to reach any agreement.
So I would like to suggest two people:
Chun Eung Hwi , Peacenet, Korea
ANG Peng Hwa, Dean, School of Communications, Nanyang University, Singapore
Pindar Wong, Hong Kong.
I have no intention of trying to force anyone through, but we should
try to suggest someone/some persons.
Thanks,
Adam
At 3:45 PM +0900 9/11/04, Adam Peake wrote:
>Sorry, the communication@wsisasia.org list settings seem to have
>changed. I have been trying to send a not so long announcement
>about encouraging WSIS caucuses and working groups to suggest names
>for the Working Group on Internet Governance, but the list rejects
>the messages as too long.
>
>So, trying in two parts. Please read carefully and try respond.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>PART ONE
>
>Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:35:37 +0900
>To: plenary@wsis-cs.org
>From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
>Cc: governance@lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: [governance] Nominations: Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
>
>To Members of WSIS Civil Society, Caucuses and Working Groups
>
>The WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus hopes to assemble
>a list of candidates for membership in the Working Group on Internet
>Governance (WGIG). The purpose of the list is to give Mr. Kummer
>and Mr. Annan a set of candidates from which they can select members
>for the WGIG. This list will not be the only input into the
>membership decision process, and does not prevent any group or
>individual from submitting her or his recommendations. We wish to
>provide the collective recommendations of WSIS caucuses and working
>groups.
>
>After much deliberation on the process by which the candidate list
>would be compiled, we, as coordinators of the Internet Governance
>caucus have made the decision to invite each of the WSIS civil
>society caucuses and working groups to suggest between one (1) and
>three (3) names for inclusion on the candidate list.
>
>There is not agreement for this course of action among members of
>the IG Caucus, but time is pressing and we feel WSIS Civil Society
>must have an opportunity to participate in this process. This can
>work if we all try to make it work. It means trying to think what
>is best for civil society, and not any particular interest group.
>Please read this note carefully. And refer to the draft statement on
>structure of the WGIG you can find at this URL
><http://www.too-much.tv/internet_governance/> (Spanish, French,
>English and Portuguese.)
>
>One of the goals for this candidate list is to make sure that all of
>the topical areas that might be included in the governance debate
>are covered. Indications are that the WGIG will take a broad view of
>Internet governance, and issues will include ICANN, Spam,
>information and network security, privacy and other ICT rights
>issues, intellectual property rights, and interconnection agreements
>to name just a few. Asking the other caucuses and working groups for
>recommendations is considered the best way to make sure that all
>topics of concern to WSIS civil society are present.
>
>Note that our recommendations about the structure of the WGIG (here
><http://www.too-much.tv/internet_governance/>) say we think the
>group should be small, between 19 and 31 total core members. By
>asking for nominations from all of WSIS civil society we are
>inviting a potentially large number of names to be submitted. Some
>means of reducing the composite list we receive may be required. We
>look forward to your advice on how we might handle this situation,
>it is quite likely. We suggest discussions about this are started
>now on the CS plenary list.
>
>Please attempt to prioritize your nominations. If you are unable to
>do so please state clearly that your list is not prioritized.
>Coordination of nominations among caucuses/working group will be
>very helpful.
>
>Individual members of the CS plenary may also submit nominations.
>Individuals should submit their nominations based on the criteria
>explained below.
>
>As background for making the caucus/working group decision on the
>candidates, a draft of the WSIS Civil Society caucus's contribution
>on the WGIG can be found online at
><http://www.too-much.tv/internet_governance/>. These notes discuss
>some of the contents of the contribution.
>
>We consider it critical that a balanced WGIG be drawn from a multi
>dimensional consideration of diversity. That is, diversity in terms
>of sector, region, gender, and language background, among others,
>must be considered in assembling the WGIG. It is also important
>that there be a balance between members from developing and
>developed countries. It is also considered very important that
>candidates have a degree of knowledge of the issues, including
>policy, legal and technical, involved in the Internet governance
>debate. We also suggest candidates should have experience working in
>an international committee environment, be aware of ICT for
>development issues and human rights. No candidate is expected to
>have all these qualities, but we are suggesting they should be
>people with broad experience.
>
>It is considered critical that though all participants come from
>different perspectives, they should be people who are willing to
>listen and consider carefully the views of others. It is expected
>that the best outcome for the WGIG will come from an assembly of
>open minded individuals who can share their knowledge and expertise
>in an cooperative manner.
>
>Finally it is considered important that any individual nominated as
>a candidate understand the amount of work this assignment would
>involve and indicate a readiness to participate. While the work
>plan of the WGIG has yet to be determined, it is expected that the
>WGIG will begin work in the final months of 2004 and finish by July
>2005. The schedule will most probably involve, email discussions,
>teleconferences and up to four (4) face to face meetings. We
>anticipate that the working language of the WGIG itself will be
>English. It is expected, however, that there will be a great
>sensitivity to language issues as the WGIG conducts its work and
>consultations.
>
>END PART ONE
>
>PART TWO explains information to include about any nomination.