<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear Miguel, Glaser and all<br>
<br>
I was definitely too impulsive in my response to the list. The word
"meaningless" cannot be used in a general manner to qualify Cepal's
work, for sure. However, from a civil society activist's point of
view, the possibilities of participation and interference in the
eLAC process are, IMHO, quite restricted and much of our efforts to
make a difference in that space are very often frustrating and, why
not to say, seem meaningless.<br>
<br>
I am very aware of the events and processes led by Cepal - with one
important correction, Miguel: the 3 IGF meetings that occurred in
the LAC region had no participation of CEPAL at all. In this year's
meeting, CEPAL sent one delegate to be a moderator in one of the
panels. These yearly regional meetings have been made possible by
the initiative of civil society organizations, such as APC and
Nupef, together with LACNIC and with the important financial support
of APC, LACNIC and CGI.br. Let's not forget it - it was an open
space for whoever wanted to participate - what doesn't happen at the
eLAC process at all.<br>
<br>
Actually, there are a lot of difficulties in promoting a more active
participation of civil society in the eLAC process. APC has been
doing a remarkable work in the region being the focal point for
civil society in eLAC. APC has sent, a month ago, a letter to the
coordination of eLAC and to the coordination of the working groups
at the eLAC process stressing the need for reflection on the
possibilities of building a more inclusive process, in terms of
incorporating civil society in the eLAC dinamics in a more
systematic way and making efforts to promote more wider spaces for
information in the national level - and also providing more time for
the inputs of regional players in the consultation processes. <br>
<br>
Moreover, it's important to highlight that, in the process of
expressing their interests in presiding the working comissions for
the eLAC 2015, there hasn't been any country postulating for the
working comission on Internet Governance. This, in my opinion, shows
that there is little interest among the countries in the region to
lead the work on IG within eLAC and CEPAL. I wonder why.<br>
<br>
I'd like to affirm that, although it's not meaningless in terms of
promoting events and leading the eLAC process, in my opinion CEPAL's
work is not open, not democratic (in a wider sense of the term) and
not participatory - what makes many civil society advocates (myself
included) feel that our efforts and energy put in this space
meaningless. It's a personal opinion, I stress.<br>
<br>
To finalize, I'd like to offer one more comment on Miguel's
assertion:<br>
<br>
>there is a trend tightening freedom of the press and freedom of
information in the region, including the internet and particularly
social >media. Such trend is independent of IG and it needs to be
acted against in other fora, which is being already the case in the
>Interamerican Comission of Human Rights and others.<br>
<br>
I strongly disagree with you in this point - this trend is not
independent of IG. I believe there's no way to separate freedom of
the press and freedom of information from IG processes and
discussions. <br>
<br>
Also, I think that the reactions to my first message are very
important at this precise moment. There's a discussion going on in
the lac-cmsi list about the preparations and articulations for the
'high level' Ministries Summit for the final
approval of the eLAC 2015 Project, that will happen next week.
Perhaps we should continue to explore the differences and affinities
of our views in that space and involve more LAC players in this
discussion.<br>
<br>
un saludo,<br>
Graciela<br>
<br>
Em 11/20/10 9:26 AM, Miguel Alcaine escreveu:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTim1521eS6TU8TT0xm=GVvz3M0OE=QetHprZsivN@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear Graciela and colleagues:<br>
<br>
I tend to disagree with you in your appreciation of ECLAC
regarding IG, although I would like issues moving much more
rapidly and I remain open to hear other opinions as well about
ECLAC.<br>
<br>
Back in 2003, was the regional document agreed in the Dominican
Republic, which pointed out to the need to discuss Internet
Governance. This was the only LAC regional meeting with the
participation of the USA and Canada. For those who that may find
that strange, it is in order to clarify that both countries are
full members of ECLAC as some others from the European Union.<br>
<br>
That full membership of extra regional countries in the "regional
commission" makes things a little bit more difficult. No
extra-regional countries have participated in the following
meetings in 2005, 2007 and 2010.<br>
<br>
The regional process, eLAC can be traced back to 2005, when we met
in Brazil. There we agreed in a follow-up mechanism. In 2007, if I
am not wrong, people from all stakeholders agreed to work together
in a common position of the region regarding IG. During that year,
it worked with the approval of the mechanism and got the political
endorsement of the region in the II Ministerial Meeting in
February 2008.<br>
<br>
There has been also a Working group very much active in
Infrastructure. The amount of IXP has increased in the region.
There are 6 new copies of the root server F in the region and
infrastructure like . While this is not directly related to IG,
its indirect effect cannot be denied.<br>
<br>
The region has had already 3 regional IGF meetings. I think
networks among people coming from different stakeholders have been
formed and strengthened.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately on other developments, there is a trend tightening
freedom of the press and freedom of information in the region,
including the internet and particularly social media. Such trend
is independent of IG and it needs to be acted against in other
fora, which is being already the case in the Interamerican
Comission of Human Rights and others. These more formal
intergovernmental fora move more slowly and are as effective as
the willingness of States to abide.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Miguel<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Graciela
Selaimen <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:graciela@nupef.org.br" target="_blank">graciela@nupef.org.br</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;">Hi,<br>
<br>
I have the same impression of ECLAC in regards to Latin
America - a meaningless space, especially for the discussion
on IG.<br>
I totally agree with Fouad's last paragraph. For us, in LAC
region, many concerns remain very similar to Athens. Others,
such as the increasing of surveillance and attempts to control
the Internet and criminalize its users surfaced during this 5
yers period and I think we must address them more concretely -
and "evolve into something more meaningful", as Fouad said.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Graciela Selaimen<br>
<br>
Em 11/19/10 2:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa escreveu:
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;
padding-left: 1ex;">
SAARC for us in South Asia remains the same meaningless
meeting point<br>
exploited by elites and so called representatives of
South Asian<br>
nations to keep everyone busy in discussion leading
nothing anywhere.<br>
The political, social and economic situations of the 8
member<br>
countries tell the wonderful story of the failure of
this so called<br>
SAUnion.<br>
<br>
The model may work well for African, Latin/CT and
European<br>
citizens/members but not for this part of the world.
ASEAN tends to be<br>
more stronger in Asia Pacific. Really, do we have to be
orthodox and<br>
step back into the systems and unions of the
non-internet oriented era<br>
whereas we can progress towards forming an institution
more<br>
contextual, responsive and engaged in Internet and its
context only<br>
related issues?<br>
<br>
Maybe a bridge out of that institution may exist that
can link all<br>
these institutional models of the past that really
haven't helped much<br>
and the global financial meltdown, recession and now
struggling bonds<br>
and interest based hair-cuts are blowing the sanity out
of them?<br>
<br>
It may be wise to step back for once and recap what has
happened in<br>
the past 5 years with regards to the IGF. Athens was the
strong-point,<br>
Vilnius, though lots of improvements and opportunities
also portrayed<br>
how many years back things might fall if not improved
for the next<br>
five years.<br>
<br>
The issue remains valid. We need the developing world
voices to voice<br>
our concerns and for us our concerns remain very similar
to Athens, we<br>
want something from the IGF........its open, inclusive
and<br>
participative dialogue on IG and related issues is<br>
wonderful........but where do we go from here? Do we
stay the same way<br>
or do we learn from our regional IGFs that there is an
opportunity to<br>
evolve into something more meaningful where messages and<br>
recommendations with working groups are being felt to be
the first<br>
step and way forward?<br>
<br>
--- Best<br>
<br>
Fouad<br>
<br>
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Avri Doria<<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:avri@psg.com"
target="_blank">avri@psg.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;
padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<br>
This seems to make a lot of sense to me.<br>
<br>
I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion
I made that developing nations also work through the
regional intergovernmental organizations that their
nations belong to, of which i believe there are scores
e.g.:<br>
<br>
African Union<br>
ASEAN<br>
D-8<br>
SIDS<br>
USAN<br>
...<br>
<br>
or smaller groups like<br>
<br>
CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)<br>
Indian Ocean Commission<br>
SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation)<br>
SADC (Southern African Development Community)<br>
ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)<br>
ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and
Caribbean)<br>
<br>
<br>
Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE
and OECD etc and make sure that everyone was invovled
and that the development perspective was heard and
reinforced? What am I missing?<br>
<br>
a.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:
1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when
you explain the need for participation of developing
countries in discussions to defend their interests.<br>
It is for this reason that I insisted on national
and regional IGF before world IGF.<br>
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>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
BAUDOUIN<br>
<br>
<br>
2010/11/19 parminder<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM,
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:
1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; 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".<br>
<br>
</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 class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:
1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> 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>
<br>
</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 class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:
1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:izumiaizu@gmail.com"
target="_blank">izumiaizu@gmail.com</a><br>
im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU<br>
Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13<br>
An:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 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>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>