[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

Sun Oct 22 06:18:46 EDT 2006

Hi everyone,

There was some agreement on this list  a few days back that IGC will do well
to engage the IGF process by posing some issues/ questions, especially with
respect to the mandate of the IGF given in the Tunis agenda vis-à-vis its
present structure, activities, and future possibilities.

I am not sure how we can interpose such a statement from the IGC into the
IGF process, but assuming there should be some way to do it, I am proposing
a draft of a few issues that I think are necessary to be raised. Some of
these issues have been picked up form the list discussions  like funding
developing country CS participants, transparency on IGF processes and easy
availability of information, and possibility of setting up working groups
around specific issues
. 

Since, I assume any such position will be issued in form of a statement; I
have also put these questions in a rough statement kind of a draft. It for
everyones consideration. 

To repeat, it is a rough first draft, so that others can contribute and work
collaboratively. 

Parminder 

Some Questions from the Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus to the
Internet Governance Forum  

We consider the IGF as one of the most important outcomes of the WSIS
process, and it promises to be an innovation in the arena of global
governance. Quite appropriately, such an innovation is being tried in
connection with the governance of a phenomenon, the Internet, that itself
represents the greatest innovation of our times, and which promises to alter
the very nature of global interactions, and therefore also global public
policy spaces. 

It is also to be expected that such an innovation will go through elaborate
rites of passage, and accompanying pains. We are all together in this
process, and the IGC promise all the cooperation and assistance to the IGF
process on behalf of the civil society constituencies that it represents. 

Since we are in the formative stages of this unique governance innovation,
it is important that we often introspect on where are we headed and how
close are we to our original intent and mandate. It is in this connection,
and with an entirely constructive purpose, that we want to address the
following issues to the IGF process. 

*	What exactly constitutes the IGF? Is it only an open space, where
everyone can come and express opinion? If so, how is this open space
different from any other open space where free discussion can take place?
What is the special UN character and legitimacy of the IGF? How is it (to
be) expressed in practice? (This brings us to the earlier question  how is
it different from any other discursive space, and if different, how is this
difference to be expressed in practice?)

*	If we look at the mandate of the IGF in paragraph 72 of the Tunis
agenda some parts of this mandate, like part (a), (b) and (d), can
adequately be fulfilled by IGF remaining just as an open discursive space.
However, there are other parts of the mandate  like part (c) 
interface
with appropriate
 institutions; (e) 
.advice all stakeholder
.; (k) 

help find solutions
 ; and most significantly, part (g) 
 identify
emerging issues
.and make recommendations
; all of which clearly bespeak an
strong element of agency on the part of the IGF. We are not sure how IGF
plans to meet these parts of its mandate, which is a point we request
clarification on. For instance, in terms of part (c), what is IGFs plan for
and means of interface with, say, ICANN. 

*	IGF will meet once a year. What happens to the periods in between?
Internet is a fast changing terrain, and a number of public policy issues
keep cropping up by the day. Some of these may be very urgent, and require
some immediate response. How does IGF organize itself between the annual
meetings? Other than the consideration of urgent issues coming up, it is in
any case important to keep up some year round engagement and preparations
for effective-ness of IGFs annual meetings. There have been suggestions of
forming working groups in the IGF process around important issues and
areas, and some precedent is found in other WSIS follow-up activities,
including WSIS action line-wise follow up mechanisms. Will IGF explore such
a mechanism of working groups on different issues working, on an ongoing
basis, through virtual as well as face-to-face means? 

*	We also will like to see more transparency and inclusiveness in IGF
processes. Information about the manner of MAG and SAG selections, their
processes and outcomes should be made available more transparently, and
efficiently. We are very concerned about the fact that while there may
already be issues about representation of developing counties and other
disadvantaged interests in IGF bodies  the MAG and the SAG  the situation
is made worse by the fact that there are no provisions to cover the travel
of the members from such groups to participate in various IGF deliberations.
This makes the balance of actual representation in the IGF even worse, and
we will like to know what does IGF plan to do about this issue? A global
public policy space where seats are acquired as per capacity to pay (or
self-fund) is a dangerous proposition. This issue stands out even more
strongly in the context of the fact that the IGF is mandated to strengthen
and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future
Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
countries (part f of paragraph 72 of the Tunis agenda).

*	Part (i) of paragraph 72 of the Tunis agenda mandates IGF to
promote and assess implementation of WSIS principles in Internet
governance processes. We will like to know how does IGF plan to do this?
Paragraph 61, speaks of the need to initiate

..a transparent, democratic,
and multilateral process which could envisage creation of a suitable
framework or mechanisms for IG. And paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 call for a
process of enhanced cooperation for development of globally-applicable
principles on public policy issues, a process which should have been
initiated by the first quarter of the 2006. We do not see any activity in
this regard at all, which is a non-fulfillment of an express mandate given
by the WSIS. How does IGF propose to engage with this issue? In this
respect, it may be important to note that many people had expected some
linkages between such new IG related global processes and the IGF, whereby
IGF plays a facilitative role. 

Once again we express our strong appreciation for the value that the IGF
brings to global policy arena, and we hope that its relevance is enhanced in
keeping with the expectation of the WSIS from it. The above exercise is an
attempt in that direction, and we commit ourselves to full cooperation with
the IGF process. 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061022/5ad03f89/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGC's questions to the IGF.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061022/5ad03f89/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061022/5ad03f89/attachment.txt>