<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear all,<br>
<br>
My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel. <br>
<br>
I have a few points to make:<br>
<br>
I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a
dangerous one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a
"trade off" situation. This is a situation that some of us, from
civil society, would not agree when it deals with fundamental human
rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome incorporating on
the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation of
liability but you accept a bad outcome (eg. a data retention
provision that compels ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens'
Internet traffic data). There are many situations were "rough
consensus" might bring an outcome that some of us will not
compromise. <br>
<br>
"Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a
frank discussion, and understand not only those issues that you
might agree on, but also you can get to know where the boundaries
are. <br>
<br>
At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future
of Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report
that try to identify the key messages that each speaker said. I
found it quite useful as many of those statements are part of
discussions that are being held in different spaces: national,
regional, and international level. Pls. see: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf">https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf</a><br>
<br>
EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet
Governance Forum<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum</a><br>
<br>
Many thanks,<br>
<br>
Katitza<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org" type="cite"> <br>
On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear all,<br>
<br>
I would suggest that:<br>
<br>
- for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF
meeting. I think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and
Secretariat could identify people from the organizers of a main
session to draft the status of the discussion of the topic,
either rough agreements or the different points of view of an
important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole
message with the assistance of the Secretariat. <br>
<br>
Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis
for mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora
to present the message or to refine part of the message, but I
will suggest such refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and
voluntary) to take up messages, refine them and present them in
other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such ad-hoc groups could
only claim that they started their work based on X message from
the IGF.<br>
<br>
I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also
suggest to get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the
method described above.<br>
<br>
<br>
- for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds
from its current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the
engagement of Developing country actors. Either we can insist in
inviting or strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the
additional funds to the engagement of developing countries or we
can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a small transfer
from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF voluntary
fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000
annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they should
serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the
engagement of developing countries.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Miguel<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">Hi everybody<br>
<br>
thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very
late stage. I have three comments:<br>
<br>
1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really
helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology
"messages". The problem is as soon as you introduce a
process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject
of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even
if you stress that these receommendations will be not
binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in
other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category
"receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that
an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what
other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I
prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week
the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border
Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations
with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a
better place for such<br>
an excercise.<br>
<br>
2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.<br>
<br>
3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the
IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a
watchdog.<br>
<br>
Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.<br>
<br>
Best wishes<br>
<br>
wolfgang<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
Von: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:izumiaizu@gmail.com">izumiaizu@gmail.com</a>
im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU<br>
Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13<br>
An: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF
Questionnaire - Clean version<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for
the CSTD IGF<br>
questionnaire answer<br>
in full text. Sorry for the confusion.<br>
<br>
Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.
Friday, Nov 19<br>
is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very
much appreciated<br>
as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings
next week in Geneva.<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
izumi<br>
<br>
------------<br>
<br>
FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF<br>
<br>
1. What do you consider the most important achievements of
the first<br>
five IGF meetings?<br>
<br>
IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an
open,<br>
inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the<br>
multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the
biggest<br>
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many
participants to<br>
understand the issues of their interest, as well as to
understand how<br>
other actors understand, act and accept their issues.
Emergence of<br>
Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is
another<br>
achievement.<br>
<br>
2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of<br>
discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on
developments in<br>
national, regional or international Internet governance?<br>
<br>
IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding
of the<br>
issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels,
we have<br>
mixed assessment for the impact it brought.<br>
<br>
3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to
improve the<br>
impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the<br>
interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please
specify the<br>
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges,
recommendations,<br>
concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g.
intergovernmental<br>
bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).<br>
<br>
a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form
of<br>
recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough]
consensus. They<br>
will not be binding, but could still function as model,
reference or<br>
common framework. Working process towards achieving these
rough<br>
consensus will create better and deeper understandings
amongst<br>
different stakeholders.<br>
<br>
b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to
directly<br>
foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main
sessions,<br>
instead of avoiding them.<br>
<br>
4. In your view, what important new issues or themes
concerning<br>
Internet governance have emerged or become important since
the Tunis<br>
phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the
next five<br>
years?<br>
<br>
IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues
concerning<br>
the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained
sufficient level of<br>
work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new"
issues, but we<br>
strongly feel they are very important.<br>
<br>
Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and
services, such<br>
as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing
services<br>
such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI
and<br>
behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of
mobile<br>
services including smart phones and tablet computers pose
all kind of<br>
new challenges for governance.<br>
<br>
<br>
5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas
of work<br>
of the IGF during the next five years?<br>
<br>
Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have
priorities we think.<br>
a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.<br>
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of
governance<br>
c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of
marginalized and<br>
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with
Internet<br>
governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE,
OECD,<br>
UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.<br>
<br>
6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet
well<br>
represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what
could be done<br>
to improve the capacity of representatives from developing
countries?<br>
<br>
a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help
actors<br>
from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and
related<br>
organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by<br>
DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference,
please] and<br>
other institutions offer good reference for this, but they
should be<br>
expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger
generation<br>
in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.<br>
<br>
b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy
training<br>
to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the<br>
under-represented and also even well-represented.<br>
<br>
7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance
issues and<br>
the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are
affected<br>
by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF
process?<br>
<br>
a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings,
making<br>
more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help
outreach to<br>
those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the
same<br>
level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder<br>
composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where
such practice<br>
is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.<br>
<br>
b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in
Internet<br>
governance processes will also be effective in reaching out
to those<br>
yet to participate.<br>
<br>
c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made
for<br>
participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and<br>
asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the
Vilnius IGF made<br>
good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as
blogs,<br>
Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended
period may<br>
also increase the awareness.<br>
<br>
d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create
"level<br>
playing field" among all participants, and may also
demonstrate the<br>
effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also
improve the<br>
quality of services in turn.<br>
<br>
e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages
other than<br>
English at certain meetings and occasions as main working
language<br>
(translated into other UN languages) will increase the
outreach to<br>
non-English speaking population of the globe and will give
more sense<br>
of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working
language,<br>
but we think it does not have to be so.<br>
<br>
8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs
to change<br>
to meet changing circumstances and priorities?<br>
<br>
As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work
of IGF<br>
primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented
direction<br>
might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should
be<br>
carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free
spirit of IGF<br>
which contributed a great deal.<br>
<br>
9. Do you have any other comments?<br>
<br>
No.<br>
<br>
END<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</pre>
</body>
</html>