[governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

Sat Jan 17 11:41:11 EST 2009

>From what I see here, the IGF is trying to get inputs from its
participants and as you see from the state of affairs from around the
world with governments changing all over the world from the US to
Thailand including us in South Asia, the process is in partial
collapse mode and the only substantial amount of input for the
continuation of the possibilities of the process will come from a
limited number of parties.

My country has been out of this process since the Earth Quake struck
us in Pakistan in 2005 and our delegation was unable to make it to the
WSIS in Tunisia and only us as a small CS group participated while
then Pakistan's Permanent Mission to the UN involving Ambassador Masud
Khan (I hope I am getting the name right) was Chairing the process.
After that, silence from our part of the world and even though I am
part of the working groups and catalyst on the Internet Governance
group for the Ministry of IT&Ts working groups on the redrafting
activity of the National IT Policy, not much has happened and as a CS
rep from Pakistan on IG I am free to state that the country has no
current stance on its position and recommendation to the process.

One thing has to be realized, this process is running in a superficial
and super imposed mode without having most of the key reps from the CS
groups that advocate and educate IG in their countries and face the
consequences of wrong policy making. Wearing different hats has never
been an answer and won't be. You will have to get in the real people.

As far as my personal opinion goes, I have diversified opinion on the
state of continuation of the IGF process. First the global financial
melt down has blocked great amounts of funding to the UN system and
the IGF is currently managed within that system. Unless some developed
country stands up and takes the initiative to house the IGF
secretariat and fund the process as an institutionalized system, its
not going to happen.

The second opinion is, that the UN will support this process
irrespective of inputs, there hasn't been record of any process on
similar lines (I mean sustainable development and not the internet in
particular) to have been dropped despite global recessions in the
past. My point of view on this informed and critical. I see the IGF
secretariat to receive funding and getting established.

I also see the IGF process to become more stronger and sustainable
addressing issues that the UNGAID process is failing to do so. I see
the IGF process to become more CS intensive as the hat changers start
falling out of line due to lack of funds and the longterm affects of
the global recession as program funding extensions from Multilateral
and Bilateral agencies continued to be reduced and in some cases,
completely diminished.

I might be in a position to say that I see the IGF process to be
continuing even if the IGF does not receive the possible support it
seeks to sustain itself in terms of institutionalization as well as
sustainable presence. If the UN system fails to support the process,
one of the developed nations will step in to continue their dominance
over the global Internet system and will continue a diplomatic
dialogue that doesn't affect their dominance but continues to control
other countries so that they may not dominate over its control as in
the case of the US Internet related interventions and China's
alternate Internet strategy. The world is evolving its own strategies
now and traditional diplomacy shall continue to evolve into new forms.

In my country, we are running independent of the IGF process. Our
survival is irrespective of the IGF because the local cyber law bills
have been passed openly in the country due to need and not following a
process like IGF due to the nature of issues at the national level.
The IGF holds no value for us anymore. It may be becoming the same for
other regions. We have to realize this, the grip on issues is just
deliberation and diplomatic interventions, the IGF is weak and more of
a discussion forum for possibility exploration. Doesn't work for most
of us from the developing world.

So friends realize our position within the IGF. Truth is hard to
accept always. Without us developing world people and issues, no one
would be debating these anyways and we aren't in it or
there.............. most of our earlier MAG contributors have failed
to produce anything constructive and useful............we know that.
Tourism and National Demands in light of the social economic
conditions cannot be fulfilled by corporate CS reps. I am making
recommendations on IG to my country, have you ever seen me in your IGF
meetings? Has the IGF process or associated entities ever supported us
to participate, I hope you have the answer. Think realistically.

-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting
> views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be
> considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's
> ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society) mandated
> that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF
> participants'. It is the first time that open consultations will be for 2
> days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be exclusively devoted to
> considering this particular issue.
>
> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who
> gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form
> comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in Geneva
> are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all process
> decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have important
> bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may constitute
> 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on continuation of the
> IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put in our substantive
> comments on the continuation of the IGF right away.
>
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically
> global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF
> should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened.
>
> (2) We should also assert that there are two clear, and relatively distinct,
> mandates of the IGF -  first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum
> for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity
> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role needs to be strengthened.
> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be
> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is
> assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other
> principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its
> effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.
>
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
> interest.
>
> Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the synthesis
> paper on this subject.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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