<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">After the discussion and
agreement between Bill and me, we can add the second set of substantive
principles where we mention WSIS principles. <br>
<br>
Instead of<br>
</font>
<pre wrap="">"The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations.²"
we say
The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations.² As per WSIS principles IG'“should
ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate
access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the
Internet, taking into account multilingualism” (and continue with the current text from here)</pre>
parminder <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><br>
Ian Peter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C682402E.4005%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is really starting to take shape! A few comments below.
On 14/07/09 8:32 AM, "Ginger Paque" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com"><gpaque@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi everyone,
Please read this draft carefully. As far as I know, we are only missing
consensus on Shiva's portion of Q6, and the update (from Fouad) on Q4.
Is that correct? Please opine.
Please send your comments as soon as possible, as we should reach
consensus and do a final edit tomorrow. I will be traveling on
Wednesday and will be offline from 3 a.m. (7:30 GMT) to 3 p.m. (19:30
GMT) so I would really like to finish this tomorrow if possible to make
sure we post within the deadline.
Thanks. Ginger
1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
the Tunis
Agenda?
The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically
set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are
contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance,
and specifically about public policy-making in this area.
In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its
way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on
IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary
innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up
the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF
take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on
them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real
policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged from
how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If
this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF
is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It
needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable
'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most
urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and
processes of real policy making.
In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area
of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different
cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet'
(section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental
organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72
c).
IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its
mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing
ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the
Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying
emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'.
It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at
least three areas
1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin
talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of
view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it
is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and
policy models than exclusively statist ones.
2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer
participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed
institutional and expertise systems in IG arena.
3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for
multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible
interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional
initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way).
Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I am happy with this text and would support it in its current form or with
minor changes.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations.² Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS
process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and
assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in
Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any
follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate.
The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic
activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s
statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as
a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions.
We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of
those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis
Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a
code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance -
Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a
building block for such an effort.
A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet
the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a
significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of
voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.
The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of
openness and universal access. This framework must 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 ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of
the often confusing network neutrality discussions.
The inclusion of "rights and 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Again, I am happy with this text
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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?
The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of
discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed
that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during
WSIS, and less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals, due to the
request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that
include business, government, academia and civil society working
together and exchanging ideas on various levels.
The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is
posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on
participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or
organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in
turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder groups.
One might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in
IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your
involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted
in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder
process changed or affected your perspective on any particular
governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the IGF.
The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other
international policy process and governments perceive civil society
participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory phase
as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an
opportunity to experience the mutlistakholder participatory process of
the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation.
This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF
process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory
governance process and this will have other widespread impact.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Good! Happy here as well
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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? [Fouad Basra is working on
this as it needs to be completely updated]
At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus would 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.
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Do we need this paragraph? I am not sure the two e-lists suggestion is all
that useful in achieving transparency and openness. Suggest some of this can
be edited out ?Is this the section Fouad is working on?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">*Membership of the MAG*
€ 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.
€ 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Not sure this paragraph is necessary or that I agree with it. Direct
stakeholder representation isnt always effective.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">€ 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
YES
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">€ We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
administration and the development of Internet-related technical
standards should
continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
should not be at the expense of civil society participation.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
YES
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">€ 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This wont happen so I don't know why we should bother to ask for it. Its
important that the overall MAG have geographic and gender balance and that
cant be achieved if each sector chooses its own slate.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">€ When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure
diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special
interest groups.
*Role and Structure of the MAG*
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.
€ 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Suggest we add "a MAG that is little more than a program committee will not
effectively advance the cause of internet governance or fulfilment of the
WSIS mandate.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">€ 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.
€ 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.
€ 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
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.
€ 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.
Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation
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.
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.
*Special Advisors and Chair*
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.
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.
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
All good from my point of view. But I do suggest this section is overly long
and some of the less relevant paragraphs at this stage (I have suggested a
few) be cut.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year
mandate, and why/why not?
The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should
continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
YES here
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
processes?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Suggest we add "We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In
addition, we submit:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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 remote, including transcription
and archiving.
And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13:
³In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular
attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of
society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees,
unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.*
*We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons
with disabilities.² 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.
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.
Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex
decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more
clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with
few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular
sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options
make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should
be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites
should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
competitive and convenient.
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.
The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the
support of the IGF are a powerful tool to foster the implementation,
in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these
years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of
multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regionalŠ level". This
should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the
annual IGF meeting.
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 does not prove its value to the
international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of
non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
NO I don't agree with the last sentence and believe it should be removed.
Binding statements will reduce effective discussion to delegations producing
monologues and lowest common denominator inputs. If everyone else agrees
leave it in, but previously many of us have expressed reservations about
proceeding in this direction
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">[The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by
Ginger, not yet seen by Shiva]
The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to
provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be
used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater
diversity of participation.^
There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF
participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly
qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true
that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more
Civil Society participants known for their commitment and
accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes.
And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant
segments and geographic regions. We mention in for example: Indigenous
peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and
particularly those who are the poorest of
the poor, 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. Funding possibilities need
to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of
various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve
attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF
already has made some funds available for representation from Less
Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective.
The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to
the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and
individual participants) would be several times that of the actual
outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in
the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible
and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is
already being spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel
support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small
proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and
the diversity of participation could be significantly improved.
With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the
IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from
business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international
organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel
grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers),
full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with
special attention to participants from unrepresented categories
(unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant
segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there
is an individual need).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I know this section is still being discussed so I wont comment yet.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
7. Do you have any other comments?
The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat
introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text
transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research
resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/
stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>