[governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive elements of IGF functions ommitted

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder,

> > However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> > less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> > Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> > three most important points of this para
> >  
> > So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> > functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> > far the most important ones ???

As Jeanette says, she lifted a piece of text from the abstract of my Malta presentation on Karen's suggestion.  The purpose of that piece of text was to underscore that the Tunis Agenda establishes a clear mandate for the IGF to work closely with and play a catalytic role in relation to existing governance mechanisms, not least with respect to the application of the WSIS principles.  I think this is a point of paramount importance precisely because, from a public interest standpoint, one would want the forum to help open up debate on the non-transparent, non-inclusive nature of some governance mechanisms, and to encourage change, but this part of the mandate---which is actually quite elaborate in the Agenda---is being systematically ignored because the more powerful states and the private sector/ISOC maintain that the IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything "being done elsewhere."  Hence the proposals on what, substantively, the forum might actually do are being spun toward what are deemed to be comparatively uncontroversial issues like spam and cybersecurity (that anyone could think these uncontroversial, especially the latter, reflects a complete nonrecognition of progressive positions, but whatever); read the submissions on the IGF site and this is clear.  We could end up with the forum being a once a year shebang where we get together and talk about a discreet topic and then go home, rather than being an ongoing process that inter alia fosters open dialogue on the democratization of IG generally.

Anyway, that's why there was a piece of the Tunis Agenda in the text Jeanette circulated.  No explanatory text was included as to why it was there because I didn't have time to write anything yesterday; you're reacting to an in process, choppy process of dumping stuff in to be massaged and clarified later.  So she was not trying to take anything off the table or seeking to imply

> > more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> > arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 

Hopefully this clarifies the intentionality, or lack thereof.  

Two issues follow:

1.  I think it's important that we do have some text in the statement saying that we take seriously the Tunis mandate for the IGF to promote transparency and inclusion in extant arrangements, inter alia by assessing their conformity with the WSIS principles.  I would think you agree with this, no?  It's certainly consistent with caucus and CS positions more generally throughout the process.  Personally, I would like to see the IGF establish a working group on Application of the WSIS Principles, since the secretariat will not have the capacity or mandate to do this (status quo forces will ensure that), and it's not the kind of function that can be performed by a once a year big meeting alone.  

Would people be amenable to including a call for this in the caucus text?  If so, we can do it today.  Either way, I may try to write and submit a more elaborate personal statement on the point, if I'm able to focus while listening to the discussion.

2.  Regarding this point,

> > With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> > public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> > Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to 
> critical 
> > Internet resources……

I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here saying the IGF should not discuss policy issues.  On the second, per my reply to Michael,  affordability and access have not been treated as IG issues and I don't think we could get consensus amongst ourselves on the matter, which is NOT to say that nobody cares about these issues, it's just a question of in which context are they best addressed.  Again, we could certainly fudge the issue by saying we think these are key concerns with which IG policies should be consistent, but that's different.  And of course, you, APC, and others who feel that these manifestly are IG issues can submit statements to that effect.  I'm not sure what you mean by the third, but am guessing you refer to the enhanced cooperation on oversight issues.  I guarantee that the US-UK-Canada-Australia and private sector/ISOC will oppose that being in the forum, and as such it probably won't happen, but personally I would be happy to have the caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this is discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.  

We need some very quick dialogue on this point and guidance for today's drafting.  

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:55 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: 'Governance Caucus'
> Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more
> progressive elements of IGF functions ommitted
> 
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> I have mentioned weeks ago that the caucus should think about a 
> statement for the Geneva consultation. I got no response, and nobody 
> drafted anything. This is why I decided yesterday to put together a list 
> of principles regarding the forum; principles I assume the caucus finds 
> relevant.
> 
> Karen suggested that I include parts of Bill's Malta presentation. She 
> attached that presentation so that everybody on this list could read it.
> Nobody objected, so Jeremy and I added parts of Bill's presentation. As 
> far as I am concerned, we can drop the second part or replace it by new 
> language.
> 
> The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective 
> process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged 
> elements of recent contributions.
> 
> Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply not 
> true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to 
> give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.
> 
> I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this 
> list in more polite and respectful way.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Jeanette,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I first read only part 1 of the submission, and thought its first point 
> > – ‘added value’ - was un-necessarily restrictive.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > To say
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> > The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> > 
> > institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance>>>
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > is to give, more or less, complete acceptance to the existing 
> > arrangements which has never been the view of this caucus, of general 
> > WSIS CS and of most other participants at WSIS (especially when the 
> > tunis agenda uses more substantive language – ‘build on the existing 
> > structures of IG’). So, I wanted to take this point out and add 
> one on – 
> > ‘domain and competence’ of IGF taking points from many submissions we 
> > have made on this point.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I was also not in favor of keeping the capacity building point 
> at number 
> > 2 and wanted to move it down. I also had some problems with the part of 
> > the point on 'thematic autonomy' where the IGF function was made 
> > un-necessarily restrictive by mentioning only diffusing 'best 
> practises' 
> > etc. We know we have always meant the IGF to have much greater 
> functions.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I thought these omissions (from my point of view) were minor, and that 
> > they came from different emphasis on different points - most of which 
> > were, in their essence, shared among us.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > However, when I saw part 2 of the proposed submission it was nothing 
> > less than shocking. All the points mentioned here are taken from the 
> > Tunis agenda para 72 with the (of course deliberate) omission of the 
> > three most important points of this para
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > a)                 Discuss public policy issues related to key elements 
> > of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, 
> > robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > e)       Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> > accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> > developing world;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > j)         Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical Internet 
> > resources;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > So are we supposed to merely reiterate what are already accepted as the 
> > functions of IGF – minus the parts that I and many others think are by 
> > far the most important ones ???
> > 
> > With these omissions, you obviously do NOT want the IGF to discuss 
> > public policy issues, take up issues of affordability and access of 
> > Internet in the developing world, and discuss issues related to 
> critical 
> > Internet resources……
> > 
> > And I cant take it to be un-intended omission, because all your listed 
> > points come from this para 72 (quoted below), so you CHOSE not to list 
> > these three points….
> > 
> > I have some very basic problem with the politics that inform these 
> > omissions. I have tried to be constructive and all in my engagements on 
> > this list – but at this point I have no option but to state the matters 
> > in the strong terms that I have done here.
> > 
> > I think it is time IG caucus decided at least its broad 
> political stands 
> > on the IG issues, within which the debate can take place. If CS 
> is going 
> > to seek great dilution (from a progressive standpoint - whatever it may 
> > mean, but such terms are generally associated with CS) of commitments 
> > already made by governments in official summit docs rather than trying 
> > to take things further ahead, I don’t see the point in being with such 
> > an CS engagement at all. I know the multi-stakeholder and CS 
> > participations points are still there – but if these are the directions 
> > that CS participation is going to take, Id rather be represented by my 
> > country’s government’s nominee.  
> > 
> > regards
> > 
> > Parminder
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I am quoting para 72 of Tunis agenda for anyone to make their 
> > conclusions vis a vis clear specific exclusions mentioned above 
> from the 
> > list submitted in the proposed submission on behalf of the IG caucus.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > * Para 72;  We ask the UN Secretary-General *, in an open and inclusive 
> > process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting 
> of the new 
> > forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the /Internet 
> > Governance Forum/ (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > * a)       *Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of 
> > Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, 
> > security, stability and development of the Internet;
> > 
> > * b)       *Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different 
> > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and 
> > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body ;
> > 
> > * c)       *Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations 
> > and other institutions on matters under their purview;
> > 
> > * d)       *Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, 
> > and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, 
> > scientific and technical communities;
> > 
> > * e)       *Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to 
> > accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the 
> > developing world;
> > 
> > * f)        *Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in 
> > existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly 
> > those from developing countries;
> > 
> > * g)       *Identify emerging issues, bring them to the 
> attention of the 
> > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> > recommendations;
> > 
> > * h)       *Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in 
> > developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and 
> > expertise;
> > 
> > * i)         *Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the 
> embodiment of 
> > WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;
> > 
> > * j)         *Discuss, /inter alia/, issues relating to critical 
> > Internet resources;
> > 
> > * k)      *Help to find solutions to the issues arising from 
> the use and 
> > misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
> > 
> > * l)         *Publish its proceedings.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > ________________________________________________
> > 
> > Parminder Jeet Singh
> > 
> > IT for Change
> > 
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > 
> > 91-80-26654134
> > 
> > www.ITforChange.net
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:19 AM
> > To: Governance Caucus
> > Subject: [governance] draft for a caucus intervention for Geneva
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hi, here comes attached and below, and as usual very late, a potential
> > 
> > caucus statement. Jeremy helped drafting it.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *Please let us know if the text is acceptable or which parts need
> > 
> > further editing or should be deleted because they are controversial.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *The text is still a bit long. Suggestions for shortening are 
> welcome too.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Since I am travelling tomorrow, it would be good if somebody - perhaps
> > 
> > somebody already in Geneva ? Bill? - took over the editing function.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I Founding principles for the Forum on Internet Governance
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Added Value: The goal of the forum is to add value to the existing
> > 
> > institutional arrangements relevant to Internet governance by extending
> > 
> > participation to a broader community and by improving the quality of
> > 
> > dialogue, discussion and development in this field.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Capacity-building: The IGF must contribute to building capacity in
> > 
> > Internet governance amongst all stakeholders directly engaged in
> > 
> > Internet Governance and ICT policy issues as well as within the wider
> > 
> > communities affected by them. The IGF must overcome the specific
> > 
> > barriers to effective participation, in particular from developing
> > 
> > countries, found in the current institutional structures of Internet
> > 
> > Governance.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Multi-stakeholder approach and openness: The forum must 
> be open to 
> > the
> > 
> > participation of all relevant actors from all sectors and regions
> > 
> > including governments, private sector, civil society and international
> > 
> > organizations. The multi-stakeholder approach should not only be applied
> > 
> > to the forum but to all bodies and processes related to the forum such
> > 
> > as the secretariat and a potential program committee.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Inclusiveness and remote participation: Physical 
> attendance should 
> > not
> > 
> > be required for participation. In order to strengthen the inclusiveness
> > 
> > of its collaboration, the forum should integrate new forms of remote
> > 
> > participation to enable contributions from stakeholders who are unable
> > 
> > to attend in person.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Equality of participation: It is vital to the legitimacy 
> of the forum
> > 
> > that all stakeholders participate on an equal basis. Since the forum is
> > 
> > expected to act as a facilitating body without binding decision making
> > 
> > capacity, equal footing for all participants is the most effective
> > 
> > working principle to enable high quality results.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Thematic autonomy: The Forum must be free to choose its 
> topics as it
> > 
> > considers appropriate. Most topics relevant to Internet Governance are
> > 
> > cross-cutting issues, which touch upon the responsibilities and
> > 
> > competences of existing organizations. However, the forum should not be
> > 
> > seen as their competitor. The IGF will function as a facilitator that
> > 
> > promotes enhanced cooperation amongst all involved bodies by generating
> > 
> > and diffusing "best-practice" and "lessons learned" forms of knowledge.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Forum as process: The forum should be designed as an 
> ongoing process
> > 
> > with most of its work taking place throughout the year in smaller
> > 
> > thematic groups over the Internet. Its face to face meetings should
> > 
> > constitute just one element in this process.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Accessible location: The highest priority in choosing 
> locations for
> > 
> > the forum should be accessibility to all potential participants. In
> > 
> > considering perspective locations issues such as: proximity to
> > 
> > governmental missions and the local hotel and transit infrastructure
> > 
> > should be balanced with concerns about travel costs and the availability
> > 
> > of entrance visas.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Transparency: For the sake of its legitimacy, the forum 
> must take an
> > 
> > open and transparent approach to its structure, procedures, membership
> > 
> > and to all of its deliberations and recommendations. The forum must
> > 
> > publish regular and frequent reports detailing its activities.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > II Tasks of the Forum on Internet Governance
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society calls on the Internet
> > 
> > Governance Forum (IGF) to play a multidimensional, catalytic role in
> > 
> > relation to existing Internet governance mechanisms.  Among other
> > 
> > things, the Forum should:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices between
> > 
> > bodies dealing with different international public policies regarding
> > 
> > the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any
> > 
> > existing body. In this regard the Forum should make full use of the
> > 
> > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Interface: with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and 
> > other
> > 
> > institutions on matters under their purview;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> > 
> > and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> > 
> > developing countries;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > §     Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of 
> the relevant
> > 
> > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> > recommendations;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance 
> in developing
> > 
> > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > •     Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> > 
> > principles in Internet Governance processes.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > jeanette
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > governance mailing list
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance