<br clear="all"> <span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span style="" title="">Again I totally agree with you. </span><span style="" title="">It
is in this context that national IGFs must be carefully prepared to
open the debate locally with strong participation of multi stakeholders
including agencies knew the United Nations system in the country.</span></span><div id="gt-res-tools" class="g-section" style=""><div style="display: none;" class="gt-icon-c" tabindex="0" id="gt-res-listen"><span class="gt-icon gt-icon-listen-off"></span><span class="gt-icon-text">Écouter</span></div>
<div class="gt-icon-c" tabindex="0" style="display: none;" id="gt-res-roman"><span class="gt-icon gt-icon-roman-off"></span><span class="gt-icon-text">Lire phonétiquement</span></div><span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span style="" title="">It is
an inescapable reality, and this is only my opinion, in most developing
countries, particularly in Africa, we are obliged to work with the UN
system that accompany the African governments in 90% of their developement program</span><span style="" title="">.<br></span></span><span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span style="" title="">Moreover, the implementation of its WSIS Action Lines proves sufficient.<br>
</span></span><span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span style="" title="">The biggest difficulty we encounter is the non-appropriation of the Geneva Action plan both the Tunis Agenda. </span><span style="" title="">What makes some countries there is still no national ICT strategy or national ICT policy or even a blueprint.</span></span><br>
<span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span style="" title="">At the
stage where we are, it will require African countries to work closely
with regional organizations like the African Union, ADB etc. ..,
subregional organizations such as ECOWAS, SADC, ECCAS ... just to name
a few </span><span style="" title="">.<br></span></span><span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span style="" title="">That is to say that African civil society still has much work to do both at the national, subregional and regional levels.<br>
</span></span><span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span style="" title="">Work in synergy is strongly capital with the Caucus Global Civil Society.</span></span><br><br>Baudouin<br></div><br> <br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/11/19 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</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;">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><div class="im">
<br>
<br>
On Friday 19 November 2010 06:00 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><span lang="en"><span title="">I
totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the need
for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend
their interests.<br>
</span><span title="">It is for this reason that I insisted
on national and regional IGF before world IGF.<br>
</span></span></blockquote></div>
Yes, certainly. I agree.<br>
<br>
I only want it to be ensured that these national and regional IGFs are
legitimate, representative, with funds for diverse participation,
especially of those who are from or represent marginalized groups....
Some private dominant groups - or processes basically led and driven by
such dominant groups, with some smattering of co-optive 'inclusion' -
may not simply self declare themselves as national or regional IGFs..
Parminder <br><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span lang="en"><span title="">In
this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national
and regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder
forum on issues of Internet governance.<br>
</span></span><span lang="en"><span title="">This
work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same
information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and
express their views.</span></span><br>
<span lang="en"><span title=""><br>
<br clear="all">
</span></span>BAUDOUIN<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/11/19 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</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;">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi everybody
thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".</pre>
</blockquote>
Wolfgang<br>
<br>
Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
form or the other. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre> 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
an excercise.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
(though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to
this. <br>
<br>
I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
global civil society group. <br>
<br>
We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
participation of developing countries in global IG related policy
making (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on
this issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making
processes?<br>
<br>
I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do
not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse,
multistakeholder process like the IGF making some clear positive
contributions towards development of global Internet policies through
making policy recommendations. <br>
<br>
What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose
possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang,
Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover,
they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making
processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent,
multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which,
for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted. <br>
<br>
I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies
(which then become default global ones) and all countires as a global
group, which (unfortunately?) include developing countries, should not
aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS
should enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process)
it is presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in
fact structurally even much better - institutional developments at the
global level.<br>
<br>
And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
vocal in articulating their interests. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>
2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
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.
Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
Best wishes
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: <a href="mailto:izumiaizu@gmail.com" target="_blank">izumiaizu@gmail.com</a> im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
An: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
questionnaire answer
in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible. Friday, Nov 19
is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
Thanks!
izumi
------------
FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
five IGF meetings?
IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
achievement.
2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
national, regional or international Internet governance?
IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
different stakeholders.
b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
instead of avoiding them.
4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
years?
IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
strongly feel they are very important.
Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
new challenges for governance.
5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
of the IGF during the next five years?
Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
under-represented and also even well-represented.
7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
yet to participate.
c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
also increase the awareness.
d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
quality of services in turn.
e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
(translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
but we think it does not have to be so.
8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
which contributed a great deal.
9. Do you have any other comments?
No.
END
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>