<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">As taken from an already
statement the following is dated<br>
<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."<br>
<br>
just replace it with<br>
<br>
Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder
advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. (continue with
the existing text from here ... Fair civil society representation is
necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global
governance.)<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
Ginger Paque wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4A5C6DE9.5020606@gmail.com" type="cite">Thanks to
everyone for the latest suggestions. I have added/deleted them below.
If it is an addition I have used **to mark the addition**, if a
deletion, I used four asterisks****. I tried to remember to include the
[name] of the "editor" to make finding any changes easier.
<br>
<br>
I believe I took every suggestion into account. Please review, and
comment. If you have not yet made comments and would like to, please do
so as soon as possible. Shiva, I will leave the "unconditional" thread
open separately until we reach agreement on this, ok?
<br>
<br>
Please do let us know your thoughts on this. I think we are reaching
consensus on a final draft. If this is not true, please let me know.
<br>
<br>
Thanks again for all of your work.
<br>
<br>
Best, Ginger
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
the Tunis
<br>
<br>
Agenda?
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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).
<br>
<br>
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'.
<br>
<br>
It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at
least three areas
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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).
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[corrected the following, taking out “all talk, as requested by
Parminder, put back the paras inadvertently left out]
<br>
**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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place.
The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops,
even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is
taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that
this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that
discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors,
particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not
been adequately addressed.
<br>
<br>
The Tunis agenda also 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,
including the IGF Remote Hubs. 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 again
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 WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations.” **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”.** Governments invoked these principles throughout the
WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and
assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in
Internet Governance processes.” 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 government’s
statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as
a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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 “open Internet”, and relevant
aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<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>
<br>
<br>
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. **Due to the request by the IGF
Secretariat to merge proposals, there are workshops and panels that
include business, government, academia and civil society working
together and exchanging ideas on various levels.** [Removed reference
to 2009 as per Parminder]
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<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>
****[Parminder]
<br>
<br>
****[Ian]
<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>
****[Ian]
<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>
****[Ian]
<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 **four [Parminder]** 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>
<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 fulfil all aspects of its mandate. **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.**
<br>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<br>
*
<br>
<br>
Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation*
<br>
<br>
<br>
<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>
<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>
****[Ian]
<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 effectiveness 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>
<br>
<br>
**We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In
<br>
<br>
addition, we submit:**[Ian]
<br>
<br>
<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 remote, including
transcription and archiving.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
“In 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.” We include **in particular**[Jeremy],
Indigenous peoples worldwide, ****[Jeremy]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>
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. **Accessibility, airline competition and routing options,
and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into
consideration as well.**[Jeremy] Final meeting dates and sites should
be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and
<br>
advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is
competitive and convenient.
<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 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, regional… level". This
should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the
annual IGF meeting.
<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 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>
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.^
<br>
<br>
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,**as noted above.**[Jeremy]
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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).
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
7. Do you have any other comments?
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>