[governance] igc@ igf

Wed May 23 02:09:46 EDT 2007

Putting it in the body of the email as well. 

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus

23th May, 2007

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input into the open round of
consultations on 23 May 2007 to discuss program and agenda for the second
meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janeiro.

In addition to its earlier contribution/ statement on substantive agenda
issues for the second IGF meeting in Rio,  the Civil Society Internet
Governance Caucus will like to make the following inputs which are mostly in
regard to the 'process' issues for the next IGF meeting. However, this
contribution/ statement also contain some additional suggestions regarding
the substantive agenda for the Rio meeting.

At the outset, the Caucus wishes to express its satisfaction with, and great
appreciation for, the widespread and genuine adoption of the
multistakeholder principle for all activities of the IGF. We hope that this
practice is kept up and strongly institutionalized in the IGF as its key
constitutive principle. If we are able to do so, along with delivering real
outputs from the process, IGF will become a path-breaking innovation in
global governance in an increasingly connected global information society. 

We are also, in general, satisfied with the openness of the IGF process,
with its processes of regular consultations, taking in of online inputs and
their compilation for its various meetings.  

As for the main sessions and workshop structures, we are for a greater
connection between the various workshops and the main sessions, and find the
proposal of having official reporting back sessions, as per the 'draft
programme outlines' very useful. We also find the proposal of open sessions
for all major organizations dealing with Internet governance related issues
to discuss their activities very promising. In regard to the Tunis mandate
of the IGF (72 b and 72 c) of facilitating discourse between these bodies,
and interfacing with them, it will be in order if the IGF specifically
requests and encourages some of these bodies, which have important IG
implications, to hold such open forums. 

We will like all the sessions and workshops to be more interactive, rather
than be a series of panel presentations. We also will like to see further
development of online processes for remote participation, for participants
to keep track of parallel events, and for greater inter-sessional activity
of the IGF with full participation of all groups and stakeholders. In this
regard we will like to see the IGF develop into a continuing process, using
its various online and offline components, rather than just a single annual
event. 

In the above regard, we will also like to see more focus on the activity and
outcomes of the 'dynamic coalitions' and their closer integration with IGF
processes.   A transparent, multi-stakeholder and democratic process should
be commenced to develop criteria for the recognition of "dynamic coalitions"
by the IGF, whereby the output of coalitions that satisfied 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 practice, or to participate
in any multi-stakeholder working process to define it.

We are happy to see that the 'draft program outline' document mentions that
the preparatory process for the Rio de Janeiro meeting will be as open and
inclusive as possible. In this regard we have some comments to make on the
composition and the role of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. We note
that the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the
cross-cutting technical and academic communities, was not openly and
transparently discussed prior to its appointment; nor there is any
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 the quotas for representation from
each stakeholder group were openly established, it would be possible for the
Secretary General to do the actual process of selection of Advisory Group
members in close, direct, open and transparent consultation with the
stakeholder groups themselves. Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for
the very limited representation of civil society in the first instance of
the Advisory Group, which amounted to about five members over about forty.
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 in 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.

The IGF submission to the CSTD notes that: "The main task of the Advisory
Group was to prepare the substantive agenda and programme for the first
meeting of the IGF. It was made clear that any decision on how to prepare
subsequent meetings and on any future structure and future working methods
of the IGF would be taken in light of the experiences made during the
preparatory process for the Athens meeting." We are not clear what is being
done in this regard.  

We think that this 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, parts (f) and (i) of the quoted paragraph
require 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.

The IGF submission also notes that the "geographical balance of participants
was tilted somewhat in favor of developed countries". This is  a matter of
serious concern since IGF was seen by many as the vehicle for ensuring wider
participation of such sections in the IG processes who may find themselves
currently excluded. We request the IGF to urgently take up the matter of
funding participation of more representatives of the civil society,
especially from developing countries, to give greater legitimacy to the IGF.
This matter should be given urgent attention in the present consultations
itself. 

On the issues of logistics of the IGF meeting in Rio, we hope that the host
country and the program committee will ensure that all participants,
specifically those from the civil society, and other under-resourced groups,
face no difficulties. Speaking from the experience of Athens, we
specifically request that adequate inexpensive arrangements for lunch be
available at the venue. Similarly, inexpensive accommodation close to the
venue, with adequate transport facilities, must also be ensured. We request
that adequate wireless connectivity, and enough number of computer
terminals, are available for the participants at the venue. 

While the Civil Society IG Caucus have given a separate input towards the
substantive agenda for the Rio meeting, there are two more specific points
which we want to add here. One, is to express 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
multi-stakeholder fashion. We ask that prompt communication is given to all
stakeholders about the status and nature of this process, and that steps are
taken to ensure the full inclusion of all stakeholders in this process. Two,
we will like to see 'human rights', as a set fundamental rights that are a
pre-requisite for development of individuals, groups as well as nations, be
included as a cross-cutting theme along with the 'development' theme for the
Rio meeting. 

We end with a note of thanks for Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer and all the members
of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group, as well as of the IGF secretariat,
for their hard, and often thankless work, in developing the IGF processes
thus far in such a successful manner. We greatly look forward to the Rio
meeting of the IGF to take these processes further to enable the IGF to meet
its full mandate. 

________________________________________________

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

 <http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:35 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] igc@ igf

The enclosed draft which draws a lot from the Feb statement of the IGC to
the IGF consultations, with some additional points, for instance as
suggested by Robin Gross at the yesterdays' CS plenary to add human rights
as a cross cutting theme along with development, will be discussed among the
IGC members present in Geneva in a meeting at ITU exactly in an hour from
now, prior to the official consultations.

If there is a good amount of consensus among those present, with a shared
acceptance that this draft reflects positions that are generally understood
to have been accepted/ endorsed by the caucus, it will form a spoken input
into the consultation on the behalf of the IG caucus.

Parminder   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070523/a73843cb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070523/a73843cb/attachment.txt>