<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Ginger,<br>
<br>
I continue to be constrained in my participation by several factors
that have fallen into a rare confluence :). My apologies therefore. <br>
<br>
Let me first speak about parts that are not acceptable to me at all.
And I am sure this will not be accepted by many others. I do agree that
for some unclear reasons the participation from IGC members in the
present exercise is quite low, and I am afraid that with this level
of participation it may even get difficult to send out a statement in
IGCs name. So I request some solid last minute activity on the list. <br>
<br>
></font>1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out
for it in the Tunis Agenda?
<br>
<br>
>The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder
processes at the national, regional… level" similar >to the IGF. It
is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes
are already taking shape. IGF >should further encourage such
processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these
initiatives. Since >the fear of governmental domination is
considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil
society >groups and processes to guide appropriate
multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers
>its assistance to the IGF in this regard
<br>
<br>
When 'mandate set out in Tunis Agenda' for the IGF is spoken of it
basically means para 72 of TA. The above response does not at all
deal with the mandate laid out in para 72. National and regional
processes are spoken of only in para 80, and mentioned generally, not
specifically in relation to the IGF.<br>
<br>
I must also observe that the draft statement seems at many places too
much focussed on regional and national processes. IGF was basically
brought into existence because of vacuum at global levels on IG issues
in the background of the fact that a lot of very central IG issues are
global, and require global resolution. This fact should not be lost
sight of. All of IG related TA before para 72 which gives us clues to
this background and imperative for the IGF and para 72 itself which
lays out its mandate clearly have this basic global role in mind. I do
clearly see the role and necessity for corresponding regional and
national processes but the central global role of the IGF, and its key
imperatives, remain central when we are reviewing the IGF. Too much
talk of regional etc processes is distractive to the basic issues. <br>
<br>
If agreeable to others I can try to propose some text on question 1.<br>
<br>
Also on question 6 IGC has often proposed new working methods and
structures - WGS on specific issues, inter-sessional work etc. We can
look up past statements. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><br>
Ginger Paque wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com" type="cite">Here is a
very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it today, adding
missing parts and working on text.
<br>
<br>
I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little
time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later
today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest
we get consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post
agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can work them out.
Thanks.
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
the Tunis Agenda?
<br>
<br>
The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes
at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening
to note that some such national and regional processes are already
taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to
establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear
of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels,
IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide
appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces.
IGC offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
<br>
<br>
The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness
and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the
importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet
governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access
the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with
current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of
the often confusing network neutrality discussions.
<br>
<br>
The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the
responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It
allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the
Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
<br>
<br>
Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this
multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and
<br>
expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the
IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that
end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote
Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP
at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and
facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages
for this 4th meeting.
<br>
<br>
3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has
it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has
it acted as a catalyst for change?
<br>
<br>
Text from Shiva:
<br>
<br>
IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of
Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity
involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase
as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to
experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and
are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This
'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement.
<br>
<br>
As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making
process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the
IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may
be relevant:
<br>
<br>
(from the meeting transcript)
<br>
IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend.
<br>
But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
<br>
These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
<br>
deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
<br>
session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
<br>
could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become
<br>
some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document
<br>
for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
<br>
to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the
<br>
idea
<br>
of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with
<br>
this or
<br>
in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not
<br>
comfort
<br>
them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
<br>
idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions
are taken by government, by businesses in
<br>
complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not
<br>
reflect
<br>
the mood of the IGF.
<br>
So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
<br>
Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and
<br>
report on
<br>
the mood of IGF. Thank you.
<br>
<br>
<br>
4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
(MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
<br>
<br>
At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will like
to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term
"multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official
purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of
the IGF.
<br>
<br>
MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to
making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the
new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We
are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and
the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance,
normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do
understand that there can be some circumstances that require closed
discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed,
and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule,
transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the
MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed
manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of
discussions provided, as appropriate.
<br>
<br>
*Membership of the MAG*
<br>
<br>
• The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required
balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so
large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present
circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One
third of MAG members should be rotated every year.
<br>
• In the interest of transparency and understanding the
responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we
request the Secretary General to explain which interested group that
person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should
be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications.
<br>
• Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder
advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be
corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among
all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is
necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global
governance.
<br>
• We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
administration and the development of Internet-related technical
standards should
<br>
continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
should not be at the expense of civil society participation.
<br>
• Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate
processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate
that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a
given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that
particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of
selection, especially in the case of civil society and business
sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority
exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a
completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection
processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum.
<br>
• When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure
diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special
interest groups.
<br>
<br>
*Role and Structure of the MAG*
<br>
<br>
With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time
to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it
will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to
perform.
<br>
• One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the
annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out
this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the
effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review
its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are
especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what
it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate.
<br>
• It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups
(WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of
workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for
managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.
<br>
• We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has
any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General.
For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires
'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving
recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able
to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can
cohere in the UN Secretary General.
<br>
• MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should
mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant
parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline
plans for the year ahead. We
<br>
suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would
also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and
prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum
beyond 2010.
<br>
• IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which
should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out
for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is
also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.
<br>
Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation
<br>
The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a
UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to
fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express
our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat.
While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of
the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources
needed to perform its role effectively.
<br>
In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation
of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF
annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.
<br>
<br>
*Special Advisors and Chair*
<br>
<br>
The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for
their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as
mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for
the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors
should be kept within a reasonable limit.
<br>
We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature
of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN
Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy
chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues
for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the
division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the
present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested
new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the
Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative
has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now
about the post-Hyderabad phase.
<br>
And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present
Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend
the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through
difficult formative times
<br>
<br>
<br>
5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
mandate, and why/why not?
<br>
<br>
The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should
continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.
<br>
<br>
There are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates of the IGF -
first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for
multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity
building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened.
<br>
<br>
Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be
promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the
IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the
other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to
improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.
<br>
<br>
It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are
in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more
controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to
the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be
sought.
<br>
<br>
Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet
policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more
participative and democratic.
<br>
<br>
We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last
few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be
assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its
functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To
this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets
involved in the IGF's management.
<br>
<br>
<br>
6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
processes?
<br>
<br>
Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of
the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster
more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices
through, but not limited to, remote participation.
<br>
<br>
And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people
with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the
poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned
with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built
on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of
Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized
opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and
activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support
of broad based economic and social development.
<br>
<br>
This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in
2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit.
For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the
"forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated
face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF
should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance
institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and
engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora,
and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for
the work done elsewhere.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
<br>
decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
<br>
clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
<br>
few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
<br>
sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
<br>
make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
<br>
be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
<br>
should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
<br>
advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
<br>
competitive and convenient.
<br>
<br>
[Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing]
<br>
<br>
Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term
and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and
policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world,
using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in
some regions and to help others to start.
<br>
<br>
The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the
support of IGF – will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in
a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these
years.
<br>
<br>
[Text to be re-written by Shiva]
<br>
suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to
extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from
a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for
panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend
comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers,
team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare
for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in
excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two
recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of
the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are
required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between
$500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government,
well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such
a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the
IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also
help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to
panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF.
<br>
<br>
Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce
more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In
the past various such innovations have been considered - including
speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but
always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due
to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may
be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF
as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value
to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the
production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
<br>
<br>
7. Do you have any other comments?
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>