<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><DIV>Dear Izumi and all list members.</DIV>
<DIV>My inputs/comments are as as follows, (with the lable IAS: next to each related para)</DIV>
<DIV>and there are some additional items, listed with remarks.<BR>Thanks</DIV>
<DIV>Imran </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 8pt"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thu, 18 November, 2010 7:13:08<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version<BR></FONT><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>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt">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.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt">IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt">IAS:<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Although a very light term is used, “mixed assessment”, but Acceptable.<BR></I><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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt">IAS:<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">I would suggest an alternate para: <BR></I>One mechanism we can suggest that “Solutions & Recommendations <BR>regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through <BR>consensus. The outcomes of the consensus will not be binding but would be <BR>recommended to stakeholders to be followed. This model of consensus <BR>with better & deeper understanding amongst different stakeholders <BR>will improve the impact of discussions. <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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR><BR>IAS:<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Addition item c. <BR>(online sub-portal website for common discussion)<BR></I><BR>c) one more addition is recommended as prior arrangements to the <BR>IGF Meetings, that the common issues of the Internet Governance which<BR>have to be added in each next IGF meeting, should have to submitted <BR>online on a sub-portal website. So, the technical discussions and experts <BR>opinions would become the online and the final recommendations would be <BR>addressed at the IGF meeting hours and vetted through consensus. This will <BR>also improve the discussions by having inputs of different stakeholders, experts,<BR>but most of the work will be off the meeting (prior to the meeting).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=MsoNormal><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt">IAS:<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Addition item d. <BR>(IGF mailing list accessible to MAG for discussion and read only for observers)<BR></SPAN></I><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt"><BR>d) It is also recommended to introduce <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">IGF mailing list for MAG members<BR>and IGF Staff for discussions and accessible to non-MAG stakeholders, Experts, <BR>or public as observers.</I><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt"><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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed to above points (however, I will appreciate if the subgroups <BR>into MAG for Regional and National representations could be recommended too
<BR>in list item a.) <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>and <BR></I>IAS:<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Addition:<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN><BR>d). Security and Stability of the Internet System should be addressed on priority<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>for the reliability, sustainability for development and to avoid trans-border cyber-attacks.<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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><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>IAS: <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed</I><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>IAS: <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">agreed<BR></I><BR>9. Do you have any other comments?<BR><BR>No.<BR><BR>END</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>____________________________________________________________<BR>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="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" ymailto="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>Translate this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>