<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><span style='color:red'>Opinions below in red italic<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><span style='color:red'> Best to all<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=PT>Vanda Scartezini<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=PT>POLO Consultores Associados<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=PT>& IT Trend<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=PT>Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=PT>01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Fone + 55 11 3266.6253<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Mob + 5511 8181.1464<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque@gmail.com] <br>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:32 PM<br>
To: 'governance@lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter; Parminder; Jeanette Hofmann;
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; William Drake<br>
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Hello, all...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>We are not going to make the deadline of midnight GMT
today, but I have <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>asked the Secretariat for an extension, and Markus Kummer
has said we <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>may have a short extension. Current proposed text follows
at the bottom <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>with the controversial sections marked with **[ ]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Please opine as soon as possible, trying to give concrete
options or <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>suggestions for solutions if you can.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I think that Natasha's, Roxana's and Jean-Louis's
concerns have already <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>been dealt with in the text or below, please re-state if
not... sorry if <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I missed something or misinterpreted. Please let me know.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>So... correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that
there are four <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>areas still under discussion. There may be other points
that I did not <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>catch.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>1)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Q1: **[In this connection, IGF IS STILL TO ACHIEVE ANY
CLEAR SUCCESS in <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies
dealing with <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>different cross-cutting international public policies
regarding the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with
appropriate <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>inter-governmental organisations and other institutions
on matters under <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>their purview' (72 c). ]**<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Could we say: (I think this is somewhat stronger than
Ian's: IGF "may <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>need to extend its efforts in")<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>**[In this connection, the IGF MUST EXTEND ITS EFFORTS in
the area of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with
different <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>cross-cutting international public policies regarding the
Internet' <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>(section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate
inter-governmental <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>organisations and other institutions on matters under
their purview' (72 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>c). ]**<i><span style='color:red'>[Vanda Scartezini] I
prefer this statement.IGF must is the strength we need.</span></i> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>AND can everyone accept this wording, or suggest another?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>**[IGF has also not been able to make any SIGNIFICANT
progress towards <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising
all stakeholders <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
availability and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>affordability of the Internet in the developing world',
and section 72 g <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where
appropriate, making <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>recommendations'.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>2)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Q2 the issue of rights, particularly:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>**[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated
mention of rights. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and
principles a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a
minority of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation
of the IGF.]**<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Note that the at question 2, the questionnaire itself <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009)
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>has a link to the WSIS declaration of principles <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times
in the first 5 articles <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I
agree with <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs<span
style='color:red'>?<b><i>[Vanda Scartezini] </i></b> agree</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the
need for new <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it
to produce more <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.
The IGC <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long
term it does <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>not prove its value to the international community by
adopting <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING**
statements on Internet <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>public policy issues.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>or change to Bill's suggestion of:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>"Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make
recommendations 'where <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to
whether the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be
met. IGC <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>members also have been divided on these matters, with
some strongly <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>favoring and others just as strongly opposing the
adoption of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this
matter have <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the
IGC believes it <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing
multistakeholder <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could
be appropriate <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>and on the possible implications of such negotiations for
the IGF's <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>unique character<i><span style='color:red'>."<b>[Vanda
Scartezini] </b> adopting recommendation will be possible only at local
level, the reason I have suggested we have formal & supported regional IGF meetings.
If we just continue with the worldwide one it will be hard to achieve
recommendations that will fit all.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive
several options--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>(Q6 also)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>A) that we use this shortened version:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member
States to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>provide substantial funding for IGF programs and
participation to be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>used to further enhance the quality of programs and to
foster greater <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>diversity of participation including enhancing the
linkage of IG <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>activities with the broader range of civil society
concerns in for <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment
and gender.<b><i><span style='color:red'>[Vanda Scartezini] </span></i></b><i><span
style='color:red'> this short one is clear.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>B) or this version, with "unconditional"
changed to "that are free from <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>censorship or restrictions on content":<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member
States to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>provide substantial funding for IGF programs and
participation to be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>used to further enhance the quality of programs and to
foster greater <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>diversity of participation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a)
Present IGF <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>participants representing various stakeholder groups are
highly <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments, but
it is also true <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to
include more <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Civil Society participants known for their commitment and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil
Society causes. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent
all participant <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>segments and geographic regions. We mention in
particular: Indigenous <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people
and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>particularly those who are the poorest of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with
promoting <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built
on an <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes
of Internet <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>governance as ways of responding to specific localized
opportunities and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>limitations, and those working as practitioners and
activists in <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>implementing the Internet as a primary resource in
support of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>broad-based economic and social development. Funding
possibilities need <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>to be improved availability of various categories of
travel grants for <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>participants may help improve attendance by those not yet
seen at the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some
funds available for <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>representation from Less Developed Countries, but such
funding achieves <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>a limited objective.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus
recommends that the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>IGF consider budgetary allocations supported by grants
from business, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>governments, well funded non-governmental and
international <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>organizations and the United Nations THAT ARE FREE FROM
CENSORSHIP OR <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>RESTRICTIONS ON CONTENT. The fund could extend travel
grants to 200 lead <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full
and partial <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>fellowships to a greater number of participants with
special attention <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>to participants from unrepresented categories
(unrepresented geographic <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and
even to those from <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>affluent, represented regions if there is an individual
need).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Or C: 'funds with no explicit or hidden undue
conditionalities' for that <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>qualification.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set
out for it in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the Tunis Agenda?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is
specifically <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its
creation are <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with
Internet <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>governance, and specifically about public policy-making
in this area.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely
to be on its <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>way to becoming a unique global forum for
multi-stakeholder dialogue on <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up
the on-going <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>process of evolutionary innovation evident at each
successive IGF <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of
stakeholders it is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>important that the IGF take up the most pressing global
IG issues and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of
such a dialogue <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>helping processes of real policy-making in these areas.
Overall, IGF's <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>success will be judged by how much it managed to
influence these real <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central
criterion of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>success, one can say that IGF is moving towards
fulfilling its mandate, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue
structural <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful
policy dialogue' on <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>'issues that require most<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with
institutions and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>processes of real policy making.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>**[In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear
success in the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing
with different <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>cross-cutting international public policies regarding the
Internet' <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>(section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate
inter-governmental <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>organisations and other institutions on matters under
their purview' (72 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>c). ]**<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>**[IGF has also not been able to make any progress
towards fulfilling <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all
stakeholders in <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability
and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>affordability of the Internet in the developing world',
and section 72 g <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where
appropriate, making <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>recommendations'. ]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>IGF has however, had considerable success in at least
three areas:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to
begin talking <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>with each other, and at least start to see the
others’ point of view, if <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>not accept it. This is a very important initial step
because it is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>widely recognized that IG requires new and different
governance and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>policy models beyond exclusively statist ones<i><span
style='color:red'>.<b>[Vanda Scartezini] </b> agree</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many
newer <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>participants, especially from developing countries with
under-developed <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>institutional and expertise systems in IG arena.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for
multi-stakeholder <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible
interactivity between the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>global IGF and these national and regional initiatives
(IGF-4 is trying <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>this innovation in a relatively formal way<i><span
style='color:red'>).<b>[Vanda Scartezini] </b> very few in this area,
reason I have suggested regional formal IGF meetings ( we are just a few people
around the world dealing with this). We need much more involvement.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to:
Discuss public <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>policy issues related to key elements of Internet
governance in order to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
stability and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>development of the Internet.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning
to take place. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of
workshops, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>even the controversies that arise, are proof that this
discussion is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an
indication that <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>this process is still dynamically growing and needs to
continue so that <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and
include all actors, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and
others, which have <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>not been adequately addressed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of
multi-stakeholder <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>processes at the national, regional… level"
similar to the IGF. As <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>already noted, some national and regional processes are
already taking <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and
seek to establish <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>formal relationships with these initiatives, including<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>through IGF Remote Hubs.<b><i>[<span style='color:red'>Vanda
Scartezini] </span></i></b><i><span style='color:red'> AGREE!<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS
principles?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance
processes “should be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full
involvement of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>governments, the private sector, civil society and
international <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG
“should ensure an <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access
for all and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet,
taking into <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these
principles <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated
the IGF <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the
embodiment of WSIS <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>principles in Internet Governance processes.”
Nevertheless, the IGF has <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this
key element of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has
consistently advocated <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes
the Swiss <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>government’s statement that implementation of the
WSIS principles should <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF
discussions<i><span style='color:red'>.<b>[Vanda Scartezini] </b> Agree</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and
promotion of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>those principles within IG processes be established, per
the Tunis <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE
initiative "Towards a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>code of good practice on public participation in Internet
governance - <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus
Convention" as a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>building block for such an effort.<i><span
style='color:red'> .<b>[Vanda Scartezini] </b> Agree</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>**[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated
mention of rights. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and
principles a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a
minority of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation
of the IGF.]**<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The concept of "rights" should continue to
stress the importance of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>openness and universal access. This framework must
continue to emphasize <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the importance of access to knowledge and development in
Internet <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>governance, while adding to it the basic right of
individuals to access <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the content and applications of their choice. This is in
keeping with <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>current debates regarding an “open Internet”,
and relevant aspects of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the often confusing network neutrality discussions.<i><span
style='color:red'> .<b>[Vanda Scartezini] </b> Agree</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows
for wide discussion of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have
to each other. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Further, it allows for open examination of the principles
that should <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial
facets.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or
indirect terms? Has <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>it impacted you or your stakeholder
group/institution/government? Has it <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>acted as a catalyst for change?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement
in the level of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process.
It is observed <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase
than there was <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the
request by the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now
workshops and panels <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>that include business, government, academia and civil
society working <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>together and exchanging ideas on various levels.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level.
If the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>question is posed differently in order to examine the
impact of the IGF <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>on participants, it can be seen that the participants as
individuals or <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at
the IGF which in <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>turn is being shared with, and influences the respective
stakeholder <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>groups.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>In fact, one might also ask different questions such as
"Has your <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet
governance? "Has <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>your involvement led to meaningful contact with other
peers that has <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>assisted in your work? and "Has your participation
in the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your
perspective on any <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>particular governance issues?" to understand the
extended impact of the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>IGF<i><span style='color:red'>.<b>[Vanda Scartezini] </b> this
paragraph is very good<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual
understanding and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory
phase as well as <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>during the first three IGFs, governments have had an
opportunity to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of
the IGF and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>many are becoming comfortable with this process of
consultation. This <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The
IGF process <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory
governance <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>process and this will have other and potentially
widespread impact.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the
tasks set out for <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder
Advisory Group <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>(MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>****Membership of the MAG**<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>•Civil society continues to be underrepresented in
the multi-stakeholder <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>advisory group, and this situation should be remedied.
Fair civil <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy
for this new <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>experiment in global governance.<b><span
style='color:red'>[Vanda Scartezini] </span></b><span style='color:red'> agree</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>• We agree that the organizations having an
important role in Internet <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>administration and the development of Internet-related
technical <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>standards should continue to be represented in the MAG.
However, their <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>representation should not be at the expense of civil
society participation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>• When recommending members of the MAG all
stakeholders should ensure<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where
applicable, groups <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>with specialneeds or interests in the context of Internet
Governance.<b><i><span style='color:red'>[Vanda Scartezini] </span></i></b><i><span
style='color:red'>agree</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>****Role and Structure of the MAG**<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also
the right time <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To
start with, it will <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected
to perform.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>• One function is of course, to make all necessary
arrangements for the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience
with carrying out <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to
further improve the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG
must review its <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>decision-making processes to make them more effective.
These are <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>especially important if IGF is to evolve into something
more than what <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its
mandate. A MAG <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>that is little more than a program committee will not
effectively <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>advance the cause of internet governance or the
fulfillment of the WSIS <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>mandate.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>• It would be very useful for the MAG to work
through working groups <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>(WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and
the set of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be
used for <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>• MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF.
This report should <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>mention IGF activities and performance for the year
against relevant <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and
also outline <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report,
once adopted by <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the Secretary General, would also satisfy the
requirements of paragraph <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background
for the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum
beyond 2010.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>• IGF should actively encourage regional and
national level IGFs, which <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should
be drawn up <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group.
Such a need is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation**<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The United Nations needs to recognize that the IGF is the
outcome of a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>While severely under-funded it has still been responsible
for much of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be
provided with <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the resources it needs to perform its role effectivel<i><span
style='color:red'>y.<b>[Vanda Scartezini] </b> right</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>In addition, a fund should be established to support the
participation <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>of those from civil society in developing and least
developed countries <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>with perspectives and experience contributory to the
effective conduct <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF
preparatory <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>consultations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>****Special Advisors and Chair**<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and
criteria for <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>their selection should be clarified. Considerations of
diversity, as <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be
kept in mind <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of
Special Advisors <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>should be kept within a reasonable limit.<b><span
style='color:red'>[Vanda Scartezini] </span></b><span style='color:red'>OK</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial
five-year<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>mandate, and why/why not?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the
IGF should <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding
capacity <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be
strengthened and to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and
measures to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>improve effectiveness.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all
issues that are <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably,
the more <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to
bring it to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders
can be sought.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs
for global <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make
policy-making <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>processes more participative and democratic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary
work. However for <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured
stable funding <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on
its functions <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>effectively and impartially in the global public
interest. To this end <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>we believe it is important that there be the involvement
of no other UN <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>organization in the IGF's management<i><span
style='color:red'>.<b>[Vanda Scartezini] </b> agree</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
improvements<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>would you suggest in terms of its working methods,
functioning and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>processes?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>We have suggested some improvements in our answers above.
In addition, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>we submit:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The IGC believes that the review should focus on
addressing issues where <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of
more inclusive <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>participation. In this instance we suggest a review of
the current <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>operational processes to identify ways for more active
inclusion of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>rarely heard and developing country voices through, but
not limited to, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>remote participation including transcription and
archiving.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In
building the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to
the special <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society,
including <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and
nomadic people. We <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>shall also recognize the special needs of older persons
and persons with <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous
peoples worldwide, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>rural people and particularly those who are the poorest
of the poor and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>often landless or migrants, those concerned with
promoting peer to peer <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>and open access governance structures built on an
electronic platform, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance
as ways of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>responding to specific localized opportunities and
limitations, and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>those working as practitioners and activists in
implementing the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based
economic and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>social development.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>This requires a willingness to reconsider the current
structures and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of
the IGF’s <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of
current <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>practices, technology support opportunities, changed
international <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>financial and environmental conditions and so on. For
example, it may be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be
reconceived from a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might
consider how other <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Internet governance<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their
work and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>engagement between meetings in online and regional fora,
and for which <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work
done elsewhere <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>rather than the single element in the process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for
meetings should <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>more clearly<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>support participation by individuals and organizations
with few <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and
routing <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should
be taken into <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>consideration as well in this process. As well, final
meeting dates and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow
for budgeting and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to
transport, food and <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>lodging that is competitive and convenient.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,
signature and the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster
the implementation, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and
these should be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>complemented by more formal support and structured
inclusion from the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><b><i><span style='color:red'>[Vanda Scartezini] </span></i></b><i><span
style='color:red'> till here I am in full agreement with the point 6
response.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>**[Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the
need for new <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it
to produce more <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>tangible outputs through a process of reasoned
deliberation. The IGC <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long
term it does <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>not prove its value to the international community by
adopting <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements
on Internet <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>public policy issues.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>**[The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN
Member States to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>provide substantial funding for IGF programs and
participation to be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>used to further enhance the quality of programs and to
foster greater <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>diversity of participation including enhancing the
linkage of IG <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>activities with the broader range of civil society
concerns in for <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment
and gender<i><span style='color:red'>.]<b>[Vanda Scartezini] </b> (
here this statement sound better than above)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>7. Do you have any other comments?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF
Secretariat <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions
by text <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>transcript and collated audio visual records as a
searchable research <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>consensus/stakeholder position reports on
issues/sessions.<b><i><span style='color:red'>[Vanda Scartezini] </span></i></b><i><span
style='color:red'> good one.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>____________________________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> governance@lists.cpsr.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>For all list information and functions, see:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>