Dear Ginger,<br>Can you add the "Red Interamericana de Formación en Gobierno Electrónico-RIFGE /COLAM/OUI" to the list of organisations that agreed with the text?<br>I copy José Luis Tesoro, the RIF-GE's Director.<br>
Thanks!<br>Roxana<br>a little sandstone... i hope it helps :)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/7/17 Ian Peter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
YES from me<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 18/07/09 1:44 AM, "Ginger Paque" <<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final<br>
> text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus.<br>
><br>
> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF<br>
> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have<br>
> time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be<br>
> considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus.<br>
><br>
> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering<br>
> the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not<br>
> consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is<br>
> the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However,<br>
> the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC.<br>
><br>
> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the<br>
> Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the<br>
> day (July 17th GMT). Thanks!<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> Ginger<br>
><br>
> IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus:<br>
><br>
> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in<br>
> the Tunis Agenda?<br>
><br>
><br>
> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically<br>
> set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are<br>
> contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet<br>
> 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<br>
> way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on<br>
> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going<br>
> process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF<br>
> meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is<br>
> important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and<br>
> seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue<br>
> helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's<br>
> success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real<br>
> policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of<br>
> success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate,<br>
> but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural<br>
> evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on<br>
> 'issues that require most<br>
> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and<br>
> processes of real policy making.<br>
><br>
> In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to Œfacilitate<br>
> discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting<br>
> international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and<br>
> 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other<br>
> institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c).<br>
><br>
> IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards<br>
> fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders<br>
> in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and<br>
> affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g<br>
> of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making<br>
> recommendations'.<br>
><br>
> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas:<br>
><br>
> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking<br>
> with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of view, if<br>
> not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is<br>
> widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and<br>
> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones.<br>
><br>
> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer<br>
> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed<br>
> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena.<br>
><br>
> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder<br>
> dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the<br>
> global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying<br>
> this innovation in a relatively formal way).<br>
><br>
> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public<br>
> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to<br>
> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and<br>
> development of the Internet.<br>
><br>
> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place.<br>
> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops,<br>
> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is<br>
> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that<br>
> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that<br>
> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors,<br>
> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have<br>
> not been adequately addressed.<br>
><br>
> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder<br>
</div></div>> processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking<br>
> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish<br>
> formal relationships with these initiatives, including<br>
> through IGF Remote Hubs.<br>
><br>
> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?<br>
><br>
> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be<br>
> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of<br>
> governments, the private sector, civil society and international<br>
> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an<br>
> equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and<br>
> ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into<br>
> account multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles<br>
> throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF<br>
> to, ³promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS<br>
> principles in Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has<br>
> not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of<br>
> its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated<br>
> programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss<br>
> government¹s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should<br>
> be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions.<br>
><br>
> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of<br>
> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis<br>
> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a<br>
> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance -<br>
> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a<br>
> building block for such an effort.<br>
><br>
> In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to<br>
> consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and<br>
> to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with<br>
> the Tunis mandate.<br>
><br>
> A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated<br>
> mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give<br>
> rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda,<br>
> allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central<br>
> obligation of the IGF.<br>
><br>
> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of<br>
> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize<br>
> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet<br>
> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access<br>
> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with<br>
> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of<br>
> the often confusing network neutrality discussions.<br>
><br>
> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of<br>
> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other.<br>
> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should<br>
> 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<br>
> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it<br>
> acted as a catalyst for change?<br>
><br>
> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of<br>
> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed<br>
> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was<br>
> during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the<br>
> IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels<br>
> that include business, government, academia and civil society working<br>
> together and exchanging ideas on various levels.<br>
><br>
> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the<br>
> question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF<br>
> on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or<br>
> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in<br>
> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder<br>
> groups.<br>
><br>
> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your<br>
> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has<br>
> your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has<br>
> assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the<br>
> multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any<br>
> particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the<br>
> IGF.<br>
><br>
> The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and<br>
> perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as<br>
> during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to<br>
> experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and<br>
> many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This<br>
> 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process<br>
> promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance<br>
> process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for<br>
> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group<br>
> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?<br>
><br>
><br>
> **Membership of the MAG**<br>
><br>
> €Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder<br>
> advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil<br>
> society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new<br>
> experiment in global governance.<br>
> € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet<br>
> administration and the development of Internet-related technical<br>
> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their<br>
> representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation.<br>
> € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure<br>
> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups<br>
> with special<br>
> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance.<br>
><br>
> **Role and Structure of the MAG**<br>
><br>
> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time<br>
> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will<br>
> 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<br>
> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out<br>
> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the<br>
> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its<br>
> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are<br>
> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what<br>
> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG<br>
> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively<br>
> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS<br>
> mandate.<br>
><br>
> € It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups<br>
> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of<br>
> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for<br>
> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.<br>
><br>
> € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should<br>
> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant<br>
> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline<br>
> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by<br>
> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph<br>
> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the<br>
> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010.<br>
><br>
> € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which<br>
> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up<br>
> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is<br>
> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.<br>
><br>
><br>
> **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation**<br>
><br>
> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a<br>
> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to<br>
> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express<br>
> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat.<br>
> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of<br>
> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with<br>
> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively.<br>
><br>
> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation<br>
> of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries<br>
> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct<br>
> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory<br>
> consultations.<br>
><br>
><br>
> **Special Advisors**<br>
><br>
> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for<br>
> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as<br>
> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind<br>
> for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors<br>
> should be kept within a reasonable limit.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year<br>
> mandate, and why/why not?<br>
><br>
> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should<br>
> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.<br>
><br>
> Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for<br>
> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity<br>
> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to<br>
> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to<br>
> improve effectiveness.<br>
><br>
> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are<br>
> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more<br>
> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to<br>
> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.<br>
><br>
> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global<br>
> Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making<br>
> processes more participative and democratic.<br>
><br>
> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for<br>
> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding<br>
> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions<br>
> effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end<br>
> we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN<br>
> organization in the IGF's management.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements<br>
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and<br>
> processes?<br>
><br>
> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition,<br>
> we submit:<br>
><br>
> The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where<br>
> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive<br>
> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current<br>
> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of<br>
> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,<br>
> remote participation including transcription and archiving.<br>
><br>
> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the<br>
> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special<br>
> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including<br>
> migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees,<br>
> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We<br>
> shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with<br>
> disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide,<br>
> rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and<br>
> often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer<br>
> and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform,<br>
> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of<br>
> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and<br>
> those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the<br>
> Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and<br>
> social development.<br>
><br>
> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and<br>
> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s<br>
> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current<br>
> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international<br>
> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be<br>
> appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a<br>
> single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other<br>
> Internet governance<br>
> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and<br>
> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which<br>
> global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere<br>
> rather than the single element in the process.<br>
><br>
> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should<br>
> more clearly<br>
> support participation by individuals and organizations with few<br>
> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing<br>
> options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into<br>
> consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and<br>
> sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and<br>
> advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and<br>
> lodging that is competitive and convenient.<br>
><br>
> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the<br>
> support of the IGF are a powerful tool to foster the implementation,<br>
> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be<br>
> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the<br>
> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting.<br>
><br>
> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where<br>
> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten,<br>
> but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The<br>
> IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of<br>
> workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented<br>
> in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants<br>
> should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result<br>
> of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their<br>
> posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading.<br>
><br>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to<br>
> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be<br>
> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater<br>
> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG<br>
> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for<br>
> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender.<br>
><br>
> Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for<br>
> key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in<br>
> order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 7. Do you have any other comments?<br>
><br>
> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat<br>
> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text<br>
> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research<br>
> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare<br>
> consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Rebecca MacKinnon wrote:<br>
>> Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic<br>
>> or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final<br>
>> final version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it?<br>
>> Sorry for being a moron.<br>
>> Rebecca<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque <<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi everyone,<br>
>><br>
>> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF<br>
>> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not<br>
>> have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you<br>
>> should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus.<br>
>><br>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and<br>
>> offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This<br>
>> voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the<br>
>> questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open<br>
>> working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the<br>
>> whole IGC.<br>
>><br>
>> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to<br>
>> the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the<br>
>> rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks!<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>> Ginger<br>
>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>><br>
>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Rebecca MacKinnon<br>
>> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org<br>
>> Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of<br>
>> Hong Kong<br>
>><br>
>> UK: +44-7759-863406<br>
>> USA: +1-617-939-3493<br>
>> HK: +852-6334-8843<br>
>> Mainland China: +86-13710820364<br>
>><br>
>> E-mail: <a href="mailto:rebecca.mackinnon@gmail.com">rebecca.mackinnon@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rebecca.mackinnon@gmail.com">rebecca.mackinnon@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Blog: <a href="http://RConversation.blogs.com" target="_blank">http://RConversation.blogs.com</a><br>
>> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/rmack" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/rmack</a><br>
>> Friendfeed: <a href="http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack</a><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>
> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>