[bestbits] Draft submission on 2014 IGF

[Norbert Bollow]

Am Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:23:27 -0400
schrieb "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>:

> +1 to refocus at least one part of the IGF on issues of concern to
> developing countries

+1

and it needs to be done in actual reality... IGF “overall themes” have
for a long time been great in terms of lip service to the needs of
developing countries and the people living there, but I have
consistently been disappointed by how little the actual content of the
discussions, and the informal patterns of discourse, have reflected the
very real need to find solutions for the important problems that exist
in those contexts.

That said, I sincerely believe that many of the solutions that are
needed to meet the needs of developing countries, and marginalized
communities elsewhere, will also be highly beneficial to consumer and
small business interests in industrialized country/area contexts. IMO
it's just because in these contexts, people are rich enough and
various infrastructures are good enough in many alternative ways, that
the shortcomings of the current status quo don't result in much of a
felt need for urgent change.

Greetings,
Norbert


> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Jeremy,
> >
> > Thanks for putting together this important submission and taking out
> > the time needed from your busy schedule on behalf of the group.
> >
> > Where I am very comfortable of most of the text, I believe there is
> > an evident need to voice developing country concerns. The notion of
> > human rights varies in different developing contexts and regions and
> > especially in the muslim world where there is a continuous challenge
> > to understand the pluralism online and its contextual impacts on
> > society, socio-religion, socio-culture, economic and political
> > environments.
> >
> > What has been happening in the Middle East and the Youtube and
> > frequent bans of other content in Pakistan are examples of the
> > pluralism and the struggle to come to terms with. As such issues
> > have been covered during BestBits and other workshops occasionally
> > at IGF and regional IGFs, it would be prudent to help bring the IGF
> > focus back to the developing context and reducing the talk-shop and
> > defensive tactics of the develop world lobby groups, interest groups
> > and private sector. Developing world participation is still a
> > challenge and there really haven't been visible efforts beyond
> > remote participation and some fellowship programs to improve the
> > situation. Somehow I am able to draw such a view from the present
> > text.
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> > wrote:
> > > I am offering this as the basis for a proposed joint submission
> > > to the
> > IGF
> > > on proposals for the 2014 meeting.  I will put it up on a pad for
> > > amendments, but I'm mailing it around for initial comments first.
> > >
> > > Whilst the preamble is new, for the recommendations I've tried to
> > > draw on and summarise the main points of previous papers or
> > > submissions taking
> > stock
> > > of the IGF including "Notes on an IGF Plus" that was contributed
> > > to our
> > Bali
> > > meeting.  It goes beyond fiddling with the themes, to suggest
> > > some of the more significant changes that the IGF will need to
> > > become more useful.
> >  We
> > > do not need to achieve a full consensus on this, but as many of
> > > you as possible should be able to support it.
> > >
> > > The IGF has always struck a balance between continuity and
> > > incremental improvement in its themes and format.  But overall,
> > > over nine years since the first meeting in 2006, whilst the names
> > > of themes and sessions
> > formats
> > > have changed, there has been relatively little change in their
> > > substance. The IGF is still a discontinuous, face-to-face, four
> > > day meeting,
> > composed
> > > of overlapping main sessions and workshops.  For those who do not
> > > admit
> > of
> > > gaps in current Internet governance arrangements or do not desire
> > > for
> > those
> > > gaps to be filled by a natively multi-stakeholder institution,
> > > the IGF's resistance to change is neither a problem, nor a
> > > coincidence.
> > >
> > > But in the wake of revelations of major systemic flaws in present
> > > arrangements that have enabled systematic human rights abuses of
> > > Internet users, the recognition of governance gaps has become
> > > more widespread and inspired more urgency for significant
> > > reform.  This has fuelled
> > discussions
> > > outside of the IGF, such as the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
> > Cooperation
> > > and the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet
> > > Governance, yet in those discussions, the possibility of a
> > > reformed IGF taking a more significant role in future Internet
> > > governance arrangements continues to come up.
> > >
> > > The IGF is challenged to respond to this call for more substantial
> > reform to
> > > its processes, and there is no better time to do this than in
> > > preparation for its ninth meeting in Istanbul in September 2014,
> > > following on from
> > the
> > > Brazil meeting, and heading towards its second review by the UN
> > > General Assembly.  With an entirely new IGF MAG also in place for
> > > 2014, the opportunity exists for a fresh start, in which a number
> > > of unchallenged assumptions about how the IGF should operate can
> > > be critically examined again, and new ideas tried out.  Yet none
> > > of the suggestions for reform given here are actually new.
> > > Several of them have been made every year since the IGF's
> > > formation in 2006, or earlier, but have never been
> > adopted
> > > before now.  The following are actionable immediately, without
> > > any need
> > for
> > > change to the IGF's mandate:
> > >
> > > Themes
> > >
> > > The main theme of the 2014 IGF should be to discuss, and if
> > > appropriate affirm and commit to implementing the recommendations
> > > from the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of
> > > Internet Governance. In general, the IGF should address policy
> > > questions that are
> > controversial
> > > and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other
> > > multi-stakeholder mechanism for global coordination.  It should
> > > avoid themes that are too broadly framed like "openness" and
> > > "security" that are not grounded in
> > any
> > > specific real-life context.
> > > Themes and outputs should be explicitly shared between the global
> > > IGF and the regional and national IGFs, so that they can feed
> > > into and reinforce each other, without this detracting from the
> > > ability of the latter to
> > also
> > > deal with more specialised regional and national issues.
> > >
> > >
> > > Session formats
> > >
> > > To make the IGF more practically useful, designated workshops
> > > should be dedicated to developing non-binding opinions,
> > > recommending policy
> > principles
> > > that stakeholders can follow to address pressing current issues.
> >  Workshop
> > > report formats should be standardised so that these
> > > recommendations, how they were arrived at, and any areas of
> > > divergence, can be easily communicated.
> > > There should be a reduction in the number of parallel workshops,
> > > to a
> > more
> > > manageable number of purposeful workshops with more focus on the
> > > main
> > themes
> > > selected for the meeting.
> > > Main sessions can and should also be used to develop outputs on
> > > the most important issues of cross-cutting importance.  A number
> > > of Best Bits participants described one simple way in which such
> > > a session could
> > work, in
> > > a statement issued on 20 May 2013 that is available at
> > > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/.  Speed dialogues were another
> > > method considered by the MAG in the past, but never tried.
> > > To that end, main sessions and workshops should be separated.
> > > When these overlap each other, it becomes impossible for all
> > > interested IGF participants to join together to address important
> > > shared issues in an outcome-oriented, deliberative plenary
> > > session.
> > >
> > >
> > > Online deliberation
> > >
> > > The IGF should address its incapacity to sustain a work programme
> > > between meetings.  A step towards this can be made very easily by
> > > offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or
> > > following it remotely,
> > the
> > > opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for
> > > interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues
> > > of shared concern. Such a reform would add much value for online
> > > participants, essentially providing an online and intersessional
> > > equivalent of the annual IGF
> > meeting.
> > > Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in
> > > the
> > IGF,
> > > because they are not granted the same status as those who attend
> > > the face-to-face meetings.
> > > Data from the IGF (including calendar data, publicly-available
> > participant
> > > data, meeting transcripts, and working documents) should all be
> > > made available in open data formats.
> > > It is vital that the development of the IGF's online platform be
> > adequately
> > > resourced.  Even so, it would only incur a small fraction of the
> > > expense
> > of
> > > the annual meeting, and need not be elaborate: for example, in
> > > other Internet governance institutions, participants are
> > > encouraged to join mailing lists, whereas most IGF participants
> > > are never offered that opportunity.  Whilst individual
> > > stakeholders have attempted to provide community-based platforms
> > > for the IGF in the past, these have not been supported or
> > > publicised by the Secretariat.
> > >
> > >
> > > Management structure
> > >
> > > The Secretariat and the MAG conceived as a programme committee,
> > > are not sufficient high level structures for the IGF.  In
> > > particular the reappointment of a Special Advisor as Chair is
> > > important to provide a charismatic public face for the IGF as
> > > well as a formal interface with
> > the
> > > United Nations system and other high-level stakeholder
> > > representatives.
> >  A
> > > Special Advisor will also make it easier to attract funding for
> > > the
> > event,
> > > and to provide leadership as the IGF undergoes necessary changes.
> > > The Tunis Agenda called for the IGF to have a bureau, which was
> > > never
> > formed
> > > for fear that this connoted an intergovernmental governing
> > > structure. Whilst the name is not important, there is no warrant
> > > for the MAG to be limited to the role of a programme committee,
> > > as it is now.  It is also important for a multi-stakeholder
> > > committee of the IGF to perform substantive tasks such as:
> > >
> > > liaising with external bodies including national and regional IGFs
> > (pursuant
> > > to IGF mandate 72(c));
> > > defining orphan issues and other areas in need of research or
> > deliberation;
> > > preparing or approving balanced briefing materials on issues to be
> > addressed
> > > by the IGF;
> > > assessing the extent of consensus reached on proposed IGF outputs
> > presented
> > > at a main session;
> > > reviewing and ensure the accountability of all fora involved in
> > > Internet governance (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(i));
> > > establishing ad hoc working groups; and
> > > preparing an annual report.
> > >
> > > For some of these tasks, it may be that smaller working groups of
> > > the
> > larger
> > > MAG could perform them more efficiently than the full MAG.  For
> > > others,
> > the
> > > more organisational tasks should be offloaded to the Secretariat,
> > allowing
> > > the MAG to perform more of a steering and oversight role.
> > > The MAG representatives should be appointed directly by the
> > > stakeholder groups without the intermediation of the UN Secretary
> > > General.  Whilst
> > the
> > > involvement of the UN was important to bootstrap the fledgling
> > > IGF, it
> > can
> > > now stand on its own two feet and appoint its own representatives,
> > through
> > > processes devolved to the stakeholder groups themselves.
> > >
> > >
> > > Funding
> > >
> > > A more flexible mechanism for funding the IGF is needed.  The
> > > terms and conditions on which UN DESA accepts contributions to
> > > the IGF are unfavourable to donors, they lack transparency, and
> > > also limit the
> > ability
> > > of participants to contribute small sums.  There is no reason why
> > > a pool
> > of
> > > funding separate to that administered by UN DESA could not be set
> > > up and administered transparently by a multi-stakeholder working
> > > group under the MAG's oversight.
> > > Host country agreements should be made public, and host countries
> > > should
> > be
> > > permitted to open tenders for non-security-essential services
> > > publicly, rather than being required to take these from UN DESA.
> > >
> > >
> > > The deadline is 10 February 2014.  Please send your initial
> > > comments and then I'll put this up on a pad.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> > > Senior Policy Officer
> > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
> > > consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
> > > Lumpur, Malaysia
> > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> > >
> > > WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! |
> > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights
> > >
> > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> > >
> > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email
> > > unless necessary.
> > >
> > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> > > recommended
> > to
> > > enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> > > http://jere.my/l/8m.
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> > >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards.
> > --------------------------
> > Fouad Bajwa
> > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> > My Blog: Internet's Governance:
> > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets:
> > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >