[governance] caucus statement, IGF stocktaking 13 February

[Adam Peake]

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA:  Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Speaking as a coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus as the main coordination 
framework for civil society participation in Internet governance 
discussions at the WSIS and then at the IGF, would like to provide 
feedback and opinions on the subjects of this meeting.

The first IGF meeting in Athens was, without doubt, a great success.

It was interesting and well organized, and many important matters 
well discussed.

Specifically, we express our satisfaction for the widespread 
embracing of the multistakeholder principle in the structuring of 
panels and workshops and in the definition of themes.

We would then like to provide some practical suggestions for an even 
better meeting in Rio.

We think that the plenary sessions, as designed in Athens, were 
interesting, especially for the general public, but that adequate 
attention should be put to all the issues pertaining to one main 
theme rather than focusing on just a few.

This could be obtained by shortening the plenary sessions, which 
should be kept as a special focus event on certain hot issues, 
designed in a journalistic style.

At the same time, separate, more traditional plenary sessions, though 
always in a fully multistakeholder style, could host the general 
summarization of the discussions, including those from the workshops.

Workshops were interesting, though some effort should be made to 
better integrate them with the overall themes and flow of discussions 
of the IGF.

Specifically, it should be ensured that all workshops meet the 
multistakeholder criteria and that at least half of their duration is 
allocated to open floor discussion rather than to panel presentations 
to prevent some workshops from becoming just a showcase for the 
organizers or a lobbying event for a single group of stakeholders.

Clear guidelines should be given to workshop moderators to this effect.

Also, the Advisory Group, after collecting all workshop proposals, 
should considering fostering the organization of workshops on issues 
not addressed anywhere or requesting organizers to merge the 
workshops if too similar.

Finally, workshop results should be collected and presented with more 
evidence as outputs of the IGF meeting, for example, in a final acts 
book.

Alternative formats for workshops should be suggested and considered 
by workshop organizers.

For example, one room could be laid out in table groups to allow 
workshops held there to foster intensive deliberation on the issues 
under discussion rather than encouraging the passive receipt of 
information.

Again, one room could be laid out with computer terminals, allowing 
participants to directly engage with remote participants in the use 
of collaborative development of online tools and resources.

While commending the efforts done, we see the need to further develop 
effective online tools for information, participation, and 
discussion, not only to facilitate the participation of those who 
cannot afford to travel to IGF meetings, but also to enable those who 
do attend in person to continue their work in between meetings.

 From a practical standpoint, it would be important to ensure that 
sufficient time is allocated for lunch break and that adequate quick 
food options are offered to delegates.

Also, it should be kept in mind that many participants, especially 
from developing countries and civil society, are on a tight budget.

Adequate accommodation and meal options should be provided.

Finally, we think that the IGF should put special attention in 
seeking stable, greater sources of funds that could be adequate to 
support its mandate.

About the Advisory Group.  While supporting the concept, we note that 
its composition, including the proportionate representation of 
stakeholder groups and the crosscutting technical and academic 
communities, was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its 
appointment.

Nor there is any clear transparency or clear norm on its terms, 
mandate, and working principles.

We think that clear terms and rules should be established for the 
Advisory Group between now and Rio, through an open process involving 
all the participants in the IGF as a shared foundation for our common 
work.

We further consider that if these rules and quarters for 
representation from each stakeholder group were openly established, 
it would be possible for the Secretary-General to delegate the actual 
process of selection of Advisory Group members to the stakeholder 
groups themselves.

Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the limited 
representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory 
Group, which amounted to about five members out of about 40.

We think that the significant participation of civil society and 
individual users, as proved by the WGIG, is key to making Internet 
governance events a success both in practical and political terms.

Thus, we would like to see such participation expanded to at least 
one-fourth of the group, if not one-third, and to the same levels of 
the private-sector and of the Internet technical community.

We confirm our support to the civil society members of the incumbent 
group and stand ready to provide suggestions for additional members 
with direct experience from diverse civil society groups.

We also reiterate the need for the IGF to be considered as a process 
rather than as an event.

We support the concept of dynamic coalitions and their activities.

However, there needs to be a way to bless their work and give some 
recognition, even if not binding, to their products.

A transparent, multistakeholder, and democratic process should be 
commenced to develop criteria for the recognition of dynamic 
coalitions by the IGF whereby the output of coalitions that satisfy 
those criteria could be formally received for discussion at a plenary 
session of the following IGF meeting.

The IGF was created to help solving global problems that could not be 
addressed anywhere else.

Simple discussion is not enough and would betray what was agreed in 
Tunis and is clearly stated in the mandate of the IGF itself.

We stand ready to provide more detailed procedural suggestions on how 
this could work in progress or to participate in any multistakeholder 
work in process to define it.

We think that these and future consultations before Rio should 
examine in detail the various parts of the IGF mandate as defined in 
paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, and specifically, how to deal with 
those that were not addressed in Athens.

For example, Comments F and I required the IGF to discuss the good 
principles of Internet governance as agreed in Tunis and how to fully 
implement them inside all existing governance processes, including 
how to facilitate participation by disadvantaged stakeholders such as 
developing countries, civil society, and individual users.

We expect this to be an additional theme for Rio.

About the themes for Rio, we are generally satisfied with the areas 
of work as defined for Athens, but note that some of them are much 
bigger than others, and thus many issues falling into them fail to 
get adequate attention.

We would like to propose to break the openness group of items in two, 
one about human rights and freedom of expression and the other one 
about intellectual property rights and access to knowledge.

We raise the attention on the importance of access not just in terms 
of physical connections for developing countries, but also in terms 
of accessibility of technologies to the disabled and to other 
disadvantaged groups.

This could also become another group of issues, per se.

As noted above, we also feel the need for a meta governance theme.

We are aware of the complex discussion on whether the narrow Internet 
governance themes, such as the oversight of the Internet addressing 
and naming system, should be part of the agenda in Rio.

Inside civil society, there are different points of view about this matter.

However, we all agree in the deep dissatisfaction for the lack of 
transparency and inclusion in the so-called enhanced cooperation 
process, which, as agreed in Tunis, should discuss these matters in a 
multistakeholder fashion.

We ask that prompt communication is given to all stakeholders about 
the status and nature of this process and that independently from the 
venue chosen to host it, steps are taken to ensure the full inclusion 
of all stakeholders in this process.

We would like to close our statement by thanking Mr. Desai, Mr. 
Kummer, and all the members of the Advisory Group, as well as the 
Greek hosts, for their hard work in favor of this process.

We fully support Mr. Desai as the chair of the IGF Advisory Group and 
recognize his expertise and professionalism as a major factor in the 
Advisory Group's successful completion of its tasks.

We look forward to another fruitful and successful meeting in Rio.

Thank you.

END
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance