[governance] preparing for IGF 2008

[yehudakatz at mailinator.com]

Adam, 

I have clipped out the blah-blah-blah from the 
Rio: Stocktaking Session and Closing Ceremony
to focus on the critique commements.
>From these: What can we address 'Now' and what can we address in 08?
--

Stocktaking Session 
http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-TakingStock-15NOV07.txt

-
HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA:

 Tunis Agenda paragraph 72f states that the
 IGF should strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
 and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
 developing countries. Taking this goal into account, the adoption of financial
 and other mechanisms to stimulate the participation of representatives from
 developing countries in all stakeholder groups could be considered. I am
 convinced that this balance should also be observed in the structure that will
 advise the United Nations' secretary-general in the preparation of this third
 IGF. To conclude, I would like to point out that the respect for balanced
 geographic representation and the participation of representatives from both
 developed and developing countries within in stakeholder group is essential
for
 the legitimacy of any action that the IGF may recommend to the international
 community. In this context, I recall that the world summit process envisages a
 multilateral, transparent and democratic Internet governance model involving
 all stakeholders and their respective roles.


--
BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:

 Now, second point on methodology.  It will probably be mentioned again,
 but I think we are touching on a very interesting element with the
articulation
 between the workshops and the plenary or the main sessions. In particular, I
 believe that in the future, as it has already been mentioned in some of the
 reporting, using the main sessions to present more thoroughly the feedback
from
 the workshops might be an interesting avenue to explore. And in that respect,
 we attach great importance to this innovation of the dynamic coalitions. We
 consider in particular that they have been, almost by accident, very useful in
 shaping the workshops and I believe the workshops are even better, more
 coherent, than the ones in Athens mostly because the ones among co-sponsors
and
 participants has been prepared within the dynamic coalitions in an almost
 informal manner. It is likely to be going on further in the future. Weeks
 expect in particular that the dynamic coalitions or groupings of actors have
 streamlined the process of reducing the number of workshops so that we can
save
 time for the informal interactions. We need to have a balance, and it's a
 delicate element, between the very good openness of the agenda setting of the
 IGF which allows anybody to propose a workshop and the need to have a limited
 number of workshops to save time to interact informally. And the dynamic
 coalitions in that respect might be a useful tool for this in the future as
 well as for intersessional work.

--
FATIMA SEYE SYLLA:

 It's now time to start implementing
 with more active participation by Africa, because only Africa can defend
 Africa's interests. And it is in this spirit that the Kigali meeting on the
 theme of connecting Africa showed that access is vital for Africa's
 participation in Internet governance. Let me just remind you of a few
 commitments made by the African community to get access to Internet, which by
 definition today is a rare resource, but a critical resource for Africa. Let
me
 just give you a few major points for specific action to be undertaken in the
 coming five years. First of all, we need to develop backbone infrastructure
and
 access networks in order to interconnect all African capitals through
broadband
 by 2012.  All African villages need to be connected up by 2015.  Human
capacity
 building, production of adapted local content and services through a
 participatory process . Of course, thinking also of tele services, content in
 local languages and so forth. We need to develop a regulatory and policy
 framework at the national, subregional and regional levels which will be
 investment friendly for the well-being of our peoples.
 ...
 You must give civil society
 its due role in building the Information Society in order to improve the
living
 conditions of our peoples. 

--
JUAN CARLOS SOLINES: 

 The main challenge is not to stop because in
 an Information Society, as dynamic as ours, to stop would be to go backwards. 
 And we need democracy, transparency. And we have to move forward constantly.
 The IGF is a five years process without a precedent and it responds to a
 revolutionary reality which is unique and marvelous and I say potentially
 because the impact of telecommunications still don't reach everyone in the
 world. And the elections and free votes are not democracy in themselves. What
 we have now is not yet a more inclusive and democratic infomatic society. The
 principles of the Internet, multisectoriality contained in the Geneva
 Declaration are not a goal but a philosophy, an attitude and a dynamic way of
 living. If we became more democratic in Rio, we should become even more
 democratic in New Delhi and we should become even more transparent. And if a
 growing number of people from several sectors participate in these
discussions,
 then in 2008 we shall be enriched by more contributions and participation.

 Our true challenge is to get closer to people and understand what people need
to
 benefit from the technology and knowledge. We believe the next forum will be
 even better than this one that we carried out in the charming city of Rio, and
 we have to ask ourselves if we are truly representing our organizations.  And
 we have to ask ourselves if our organizations represent the interests,
 concerns, not of our staff, but, rather, the interests of the communities we
 serve, for whom we have to work and be more democratic. The IGF, with its
 secretariat and the multisectorial groups carried out an impartial task.  We
 have to recognize the importance of the reports that were used by us as basis
 for the discussions held here this week. There will always be room for
 improvement, but changes must be the result of reflection and analysis, and
all
 players should be consulted for these adoptions. We shall try to consolidate
 other principles, such as alternability, plurality, and meritocracy.  This is
 the only way we will be more transparent.  If we use electronic means to allow
 for the participation of people, we must now worry that all of them should use
 the tools, should know how Wiki works, they should access webcast, and they
 should simply reply e-mail. If they don't do that, we have to work to
 understand their reasons.  Maybe they cannot have access, they don't know the
 topics they are being consulted about, they don't know about the Tunis Agenda,
 and they may even ignore the rights reserved for them by their own
 institutions. And only by working on this we can become more democratic. We
 shouldn't just have sectorial, regional, and gender balance.  First and
 foremost, we have to have a balance on visions.  The challenge will never be
--
 have panel members and speakers, et cetera. The true challenge is to find what
 enriches the wealth and knowledge of all the others.  We should look for
 balance not just with other sectors, but also with the participation of
private
 and production of players in developing countries, intellectual property, and
 encouragement to investment.  Everyone has a way to participate.  And the
 interests of states should find a balance before the interest of other states
 and peoples.

--
JEANETTE HOFMANN:

 The first concerns gender balance. I'm sure most of you
 must have noticed this, there has been a striking discrepancy between the
share
 of women in the audience and the share of women on the panels. There have been
 quite a few panels where there was not one single woman included.  Can't we do
 better? The IGF is supposed to be an innovative space.  This should also
 include the diversity of experts we invite to our panels. Second point. 
 Diversity of stakeholders. I think we are doing quite well in terms of
 including several stakeholders in the organization of workshops and also in
 terms of including them on the panels.  But this does not always mean that we
 also have a diversity of views. Several stakeholders can still have the same
 opinion. My sense is we should be more courageous and not be afraid of
 diversity of opinions, and make sure in the following years that we also
invite
 people with different opinions. My third point concerns some complaining and
 moaning I've heard over the last days about lack of structure, too many
 workshops, too much duplication between workshops, and overlapping topics.
 First of all, I think what is very positive is that most of the workshops
 attracted a big audience, and people really stayed and asked questions and
 contributed. 

--
COLIN OLIVER:

 In fact, although we speak of workshops as being a bottom-up process, I do
wonder,
 in fact, I think it's an issue for the next advisory group to consider, is
 should we actually be inviting, not compelling, not imposing structures, but
 inviting more cross-fertilization of that kind? I think we need to avoid
 negotiation, as has been said before.	But I think we can also move beyond
 simple information-sharing.  And that could be encouraged by, again, inviting
 contributions of more structured information.
 ...
 Finally, I want
 to say that I think it is premature to institutionalize too many arrangements.

 We're dealing with the Internet, one of the most dynamic agencies in our
world.
  I don't think we should be making rules.  I don't think we should be making
 rules for dynamic coalitions, for example.  But many other aspects, I think we
 should be prepared to encourage evolution, give space to participants to make
 things happen, and admit that we're learning as we go.  Many different points
 of view need to be heard.  Those who've taken a back seat need to be
encouraged
 to come forward.  And the biggest challenge of all, I think, it's coming back
 to a point, is that Bertrand made right at the beginning, is that we have to
 take advantage of the opportunity to make new friends.

--
BILL DRAKE:

 the one main point that I think came forward, the suggestion of
 a number of people, was that perhaps, as we look to the future, since the IGF
 per se can't do these things, and it's really up to stakeholders to take this
 role, we should try to figure out a way to create a facilitative environment
in
 which the stakeholders could try to take on some of these functions more
 effectively, but also bring the results of their activities, of their efforts,
 to the wider community for discussion.
 ...
 Because, really, at the end of the day, the IGF as it is now, the
 real value is the bottom-up energy that you're getting from all these
different
 communities in generating new ideas and having very vibrant discussions. And
if
 we could find a way to leverage what they have generated and bring it into a
 wider debate, that would be helpful. That doesn't necessarily mean adopting
the
 recommendations.  It means simply addressing the issues on a broader basis,
 giving more people a chance to respond to the ideas, and so on. In this
manner,
 also, those ideas might feed back, then, into other institutions and back to
 the national level.

--
PEDRO VEIGA:

 The Internet is a platform of global value that should develop in
 the spirit of its pioneering times, offering ample opportunities for
creativity
 and innovation to all users. It should remain open, people-centered, and
 multilingual, flexible to foster new technologies and users, preserve
 neutrality, inclusive and supportive of global, social, cultural, and economic
 interaction and development, but at the same time, meet the new challenges of
 today and tomorrow.  Improving access to the Internet is a goal for us all,
and
 freedom of expression and access to knowledge through the Internet stand as
 important democratic values to be preserved. The current arrangements for
 Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly
 robust, dynamic, and geographically diverse medium that it is today.

--
EVERTON LUCERO:

 And there are
 certain improvements that I believe to be considered for the next session, or
 sessions, aiming at this goal. For instance, attendance at the main sessions. 
 This is one of the main sessions with great attendance, but others weren't
that
 successful. Perhaps because there were too many events in parallel and lots of
 people wanted to be, at the same time, in workshops which were considering
more
 in-depth issues that later on would be brought to the attention of the main
 session. So perhaps one good improvement would be to have main sessions as
 single events or at least with few parallel sessions so that they will not be
 competing with workshops. Main sessions could be held, for instance, each
 morning or half morning.  And the reporting back sessions, on the other hand,
 were even lower in attendance. I think they could be incorporated into the
main
 sessions to make them more useful. And as I said, substantive and in-depth
 debate could be left to the workshops and dynamic coalition meetings.	Main
 sessions would therefore receive reports and focus on discussing suggested
 actions, possible way forward. Let's see that the main question of -- the main
 question to be posed to each main session would be where and how this
 particular issue should be addressed. So there's no need to reproduce at main
 sessions the same workshop format of panelists and discussants that we already
 have at the workshops. We could also think of a possible rotational basis for
 chairing each of the main sessions among the different regions. Of course, the
 host country would continue chairing the opening, the closing, perhaps the
 emerging issues or one of these particular sessions, including taking stock,
 but it would be good, perhaps, to have a more diverse participation and
 geographically balanced. 
 ...
 I would like to use this
 opportunity also to suggest that procedures for preparing the IGF should also
 be improved.  The present advisory group has no rules of procedure, and the
 absence of rules is not necessarily beneficial to the process. There are no
 clear rules of participants, and not absolute transparency in its proceedings.

--
MARGARET MORAN:

 Most particularly it is of real significance to users and that is my question.

 How  can we ensure that we have a greater voice for users within this process
as
 part of a gathering of stakeholders?  I think we have to ensure that the voice
 of the user is really heard so that they can be part of determining the
 outcomes from technological innovation going forward. And by that I do not
mean
 existing stakeholders having new mechanisms, online mechanisms, for example,
to
 have their voice heard over again. I do mean users that are usually not heard
 in forums like this.  And I believe that we should be looking for mechanisms
 and a commitment to the IGF at various levels to establish mechanisms for
 public participation in the kinds of debates that effect all of us. That way I
 think there will be greater transparency, greater accountability and real
 outcomes from the IGF in the future.

--
End Stocktaking Session
-------------------------

Closing Ceremony 
http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-Closing-15NOV07.txt

--
MARKUS KUMMER

 There are square brackets
 to be concluded, and we will conclude that. And we also have a short, generic
 passage on all the events that have taken place, all in all, 84 events outside
 the main session, which is a considerable amount. We also had the final
 statistics. We had over 2,100 registered participants.  However, not all of
 them turned up, and we issued, I think, 1,363 badges of participants from 109
 countries. Also, we had over 100 members of the press who attended the event.

--
AUGUSTO GADELHA VIEIRA

The second IGF provided a space for
 multistakeholder debate on cross-cutting themes. It facilitated the dialogue
 between organizations in charge of complementary aspects of Internet
 governance. It identified emerging issues and brought them to the attention of
 the public. The intense debate and participation in main sessions, workshops,
 open and best-practice forums, dynamic coalitions, and other meetings
confirmed
 the role of the IGF in shaping the governance of the Internet, with a view to
 contribute to the building of a people-centered, development-oriented, and
 inclusive information society. The second meeting of the IGF also confirmed
 that the format of this forum is at the forefront of multilateral
policy-making
 and may set precedents for a renewed, upgraded style of multilateral
 conferences in an open, inclusive, and representative environment, with the
 participation of all stakeholders. It's important to build upon the experience
 achieved so far, with a view of exploring possible avenues for strengthening
 the existing Internet governance mechanisms, adding to their legitimacy to the
 international community in adequacy to the guiding principles of the World
 Summit on the Information Society. The second IGF meeting advanced on the path
 towards the full implementation of the mandate in terms of participation,
 scope, thematic agenda, organization of work, and possible results.  It
 contributed to the incremental process that aims at accomplishing the
 fulfillment of the forum's mandate by 2010, at the end of the five-year period
 initially established by the Tunis Agenda. 
 ...
 There are certainly lessons to be
 learned and improvements to be made for the next IGF meetings. Among those
 improvements, I would like to stress the need for reviewing the IGF
preparation
 process in order to allow for a broader, more balanced and more representative
 participation from all stakeholders, as well as from all regions of the world.
 It's important to bring into this process as much diversity of opinions as
 possible, taking into account gender balance. The criteria, nomination,
 rotation, proceedings, and the role of the advisory group or other structures
 to be used as a supporting structure to prepare and conduct the meeting could
 be improved. 

--
DELPHINE NANA MEKOUNTE:

 To speak of Africa, African countries cannot be left behind
 in this revolution.  It must be a pluralist, transparent, democratic
 revolution. That is why ACSIS, in accordance with the initiatives we have
taken
 involving all stakeholders, has proposed an agenda for African priorities in
 Internet governance. This study will be submitted to the next forum in New
 Delhi in 2008. In light of the forgoing we would recommend once again to the
 United Nations in general and the Secretariat in particular to pay special
 attention to strengthening arrangements for granting fellowships to people
from
 civil society and developing countries, and to the granting visas of
developing
 countries' nationals in order to facilitate even more the physical
 participation -- let me repeat that, the physical participation of
 representatives from civil societies and developing countries in the various
 IGFs. We need to strengthen linguistic diversity.  In this connection, the
 working documents need to be translated into the United Nations languages
 without any exception.  And also, the audio system has to be interpreted
 starting with the Web site of the IGF itself. We need to strengthen the
 multistakeholder interaction between governments, the private sector and the
 civil society. We need to make the committees of the IGF more efficient and
 more effective.

--
PETER EDUARDO SIEMSEN:

 We have seen a rising tide of consciousness
 with regard to security through collaborations, and preventing abuse of the
 Internet. We particularly welcome the discussions on child protection and look
 forward to constructive doll log with other interested parties in the near
 future. We have underscored the vital importance of establishing an enabling
 environment which promotes investment, fosters entrepreneurship, and
stimulates
 innovation. Key factors of this environment are:  Strengthened cooperation on
 developing Internet infrastructure; expanded Internet access; pro-competitive
 policy frameworks; liberalization, and protection of intellectual property
 rights. We have highlighted that as the Internet and Internet applications
 continue to evolve to an accelerating pace, we must ensure that policy
 approaches do not block innovation or restrict user choice. We have also heard
 through the discussions this week how much important all of us place on
 innovative applications and service that are allowing people to share more
 information and promote cultural diversity. It is, however, important to
 remember that to maximize the opportunities that these new applications and
 services provide, they must be supported by access and skills resulting from
 training and education.  Without literacy and computer skills beginning in
 schools and continuing throughout a person's career, people cannot maximize
 their use of the Internet. 

--
MATTHEW SHEARS:

 I'd like to make one or two
 observations. Part of the IGF's purpose is to engage broadly across
 stakeholders and across regions.  The ability to reach beyond the physical
 confines of an IGF is an expectation.	Remote participation is therefore an
 essential tool.  Yet, there was but one, one question for the access panelists
 through the remote channels at this IGF.  This is not a criticism of the IGF
 Rio infrastructure, but this should cause us to think about how we make this
 event ever more relevant to those who do not have the wherewithal to attend in
 person.  We must shape the IGF to encourage greater and more diverse
 participation.  If we fail in this respect, the IGF will have failed. The IGF
 can undoubtedly evolve further, and I think we can all agree on this. 
However,
 there is, in true multistakeholder fashion, a diversity of views as to how it
 should evolve. We are of the firm belief that the IGF can evolve so it brings
 greater value to participants without becoming burdened by further processes
 and structure.  Undoubtedly, there are some important issues that need to be
 addressed before Delhi.  But they should not undermine this grand experiment.
 Defining success is always difficult for these types of events.  It should not
 be measured by whether or not we can tick the boxes in the mandate, but,
 rather, by understanding how the main sessions, the workshops, and the best
 practices forums resonate with the participants and bring about change.

-
End Closing Ceremony 
---------------------
____________________________________________________________
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