<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C6833165.4075%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any clear
success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something
similaR
</pre>
</blockquote>
It is a matter of fact. Not only IGF has not done above, it doesnt
have any structure adequate to this purpose. This is also mostly
recognized even within the IGF as something to ponder about, and hints
about this, and the issues below on clear outcomes were thrown at the
concluding session of Hyderabad IGF. In fact much more than hints, the
chair seems to have clearly said something to the effect that if wont
be enough if we just keep to discussing things and that we may need to
move forward. And most participants seemed to be veering around to this
viewpoint. (My comments here cover 72b and c and also 72 e and g
below). <br>
<br>
Admittedly, how to do it is still not very clear, but if we start
diluting the imperative we certainly wont make any progress. One thing
I cant understand is that why we as civil society - generally a voice
of the 'outsiders' and the 'less heard' - need to be so diplomatic.
Civil society is expected to present clear, rational, and, if needed
hard-hitting, critiques. I think we are trying to be unnecessarily coy
here, and in any such attempt will miss the point entirely. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C6833165.4075%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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'.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Same here. We are not writing a resolution for the UN Secy General to
sign. We are writing a civil society statement of review of a key
global governance institution. It needs to be clear and bold. We said
good things about IGF boldly, and not so good things need to stated as
boldly. We need to say clearly what we think and feel. If we are saying
'no significant progress has been made', we need to be able to show
what 'less than significant' progress on these specific counts are we
speaking about. Fact is that there is no structural form within the IGF
right now to do this set of functions, and the IGF is still struggling
with this. If civil society doesnt clearly bring this fact out who
will. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C6833165.4075%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">IGF has however, 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 others¹ 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 beyond exclusively statist ones.
2. Building 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
interactivity 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.
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 an 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 in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not
been adequately addressed.
The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder
processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As
already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking
shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish
formal relationships with these initiatives, including
through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of
governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF
should use global civil society groups and processes to guide
appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces.
IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.**
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 WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an
equitable
distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable
and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account
multilingualism². 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 repeated mention of 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.]
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I would include this but happy to go either way
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should
govern the
Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
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 there was
during
WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF
Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that
include business, government, academia and civil society working
together and exchanging ideas on various levels.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The impact of the IGF can also be 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 is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder
groups.
In fact, 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 the extended impact of the IGF.
The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill¹s edit] improving mutual
understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the
preparatory phase
as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an
opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of
the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this 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 and potentially widespread
impact.
4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for
it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group
(MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
*Membership of the MAG*
**[Bill suggests we delete]€ 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.**
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I agree lets delete
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">€** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the
multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be
remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is
necessary
to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.
€ 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.
€ When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure
diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups
with special
needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance.
*Role and Structure of the MAG*
With the experience of four 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. A MAG
that is little more than a program committee will not effectively
advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS
mandate.
€ It **[Bill]would** 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.
**[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]€ 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.**
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">€ 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 provide necessary background for the
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 up
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
fulfil 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 much of
the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with
the resources it needs to perform its role effectively.
**In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation
of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries
with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct
of the discussions 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 the 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.
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.
**[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity
building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to
be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to
improve effectiveness.
[MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above.
It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are
in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, 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 seen as providing inputs for global
Internet
policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more
participative and democratic.
We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for
this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding
from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions
effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To
this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no
other UN organization in the IGF's management.
6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
processes?
We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition,
we submit:
**[Delete, as per Bill¹s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of
the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement
that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus
on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion**
the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive
participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current
operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of
rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
remote participation including transcription and archiving.
And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In 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 in particular, Indigenous
peoples worldwide, 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 reconsider the current structures and
processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s
inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current
practices, technology support opportunities, changed international
financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be
appropriate for the
Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face
meeting.
Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance
institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and
engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and
for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the
work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process.
Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should
more clearly
support participation by individuals and organizations with few
resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing
options, and
city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration
as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should
be announced 360
days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to
ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is
competitive and convenient.
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 the mission of the IGF and these should be
complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the
Remote Hubs through 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. 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=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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 including enhancing the linkage of IG
activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for
example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender.
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.
</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>