From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Jul 31 18:05:41 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:05:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> Message-ID: <61a136f40907311505w65b39dbbxeb7a64ea2a384954@mail.gmail.com> Michael: I agree. Seems like a tall order to take private property and declare it public goods unless compensation is agreed. But that aside, but I can tell you losing Skype would have a severe impact on many communities of interest, especially several civil society ones, that I'm attached Carlton Samuels On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a > service to be left to the market... > > I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this (or > at least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion topic for the > next Internet Governance Forum... > > How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global > interest and introduce some means to ensure its survival? > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > *Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2009 6:13 AM > *To:* ip > *Subject:* [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Bill Daul > *Date: *July 31, 2009 7:20:29 AM EDT > *To: *Dave Farber > *Subject: **Shock threat to shut Skype* > > Asher MosesJuly 31, 2009 - 1:38PM > > eBay says it may have to shut down Skype due to a licensing dispute with > the founders of the internet telephony service. > > The surprise admission puts a cloud over the 40 million active daily users > around the world who use Skype for business or to keep in touch with friends > and far-flung relatives. > > A recent study by market researcher TeleGeography found Skype carried about > 8 per cent of all international voice traffic, making it the world’s largest > provider of cross-border voice communications. > > The online auction powerhouse bought Skype from entrepreneurs Niklas > Zennstrom and Janus Friis for $US2.6 billion in 2005, but this did not > include a core piece of peer-to-peer communications technology that powers > the software. > > <..> > > > http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/shock-threat-to-shut-skype-20090731-e3qe.html > > > > -- > > *Bill Daul* > > Chief Collaboration Officer > *NextNow Collaboratory*: a synergistic web of relationships focused on > transforming the present > > http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow > http://www.nextnow.net -- NN Network Blog > http://www.nextnow.org -- NN Collaboratory Blog > > ================================== > > "Play with boundaries, not within." > > -- > > *Bill Daul* > > Chief Collaboration Officer > *NextNow Collaboratory*: a synergistic web of relationships focused on > transforming the present > > http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow > http://www.nextnow.net -- NN Network Blog > http://www.nextnow.org -- NN Collaboratory Blog > > ================================== > > "Play with boundaries, not within." > > > Archives > > !DSPAM:2676,4a72ede325631738712442! > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Jul 31 22:37:04 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:37:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <61a136f40907311505w65b39dbbxeb7a64ea2a384954@mail.gmail.com> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> <61a136f40907311505w65b39dbbxeb7a64ea2a384954@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20907311937s3e173676m3e62377f74f7c17a@mail.gmail.com> The way I see it skype will be replaced by something else if it's that important. I think they are being silly. It's all about money. As I skype user I can tell you they have been nice to us this last month. all skype users got unlimited calls world wide to test out a service for unlimited global calling for only 9.00 per month. Maybe thats their way of saying good bye. In any case - skype will be a loss. I rarely use it except for some people. never use it for global calling. I like land lines. but it has been helpful from time to time and i was considering even putting it on my blog. regards joe On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote: > Michael: > I agree. Seems like a tall order to take private property and declare it > public goods unless compensation is agreed. But that aside, but I can tell > you losing Skype would have a severe impact on many communities of interest, > especially several civil society ones, that I'm attached > > Carlton Samuels > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a >> service to be left to the market... >> >> I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this (or >> at least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion topic for the >> next Internet Governance Forum... >> >> How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global >> interest and introduce some means to ensure its survival? >> >> MBG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] >> *Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2009 6:13 AM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Bill Daul >> *Date: *July 31, 2009 7:20:29 AM EDT >> *To: *Dave Farber >> *Subject: **Shock threat to shut Skype* >> >> Asher MosesJuly 31, 2009 - 1:38PM >> >> eBay says it may have to shut down Skype due to a licensing dispute with >> the founders of the internet telephony service. >> >> The surprise admission puts a cloud over the 40 million active daily users >> around the world who use Skype for business or to keep in touch with friends >> and far-flung relatives. >> >> A recent study by market researcher TeleGeography found Skype carried >> about 8 per cent of all international voice traffic, making it the world’s >> largest provider of cross-border voice communications. >> >> The online auction powerhouse bought Skype from entrepreneurs Niklas >> Zennstrom and Janus Friis for $US2.6 billion in 2005, but this did not >> include a core piece of peer-to-peer communications technology that powers >> the software. >> >> <..> >> >> >> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/shock-threat-to-shut-skype-20090731-e3qe.html >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Bill Daul* >> >> Chief Collaboration Officer >> *NextNow Collaboratory*: a synergistic web of relationships focused on >> transforming the present >> >> http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow >> http://www.nextnow.net -- NN Network Blog >> http://www.nextnow.org -- NN Collaboratory Blog >> >> ================================== >> >> "Play with boundaries, not within." >> >> -- >> >> *Bill Daul* >> >> Chief Collaboration Officer >> *NextNow Collaboratory*: a synergistic web of relationships focused on >> transforming the present >> >> http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow >> http://www.nextnow.net -- NN Network Blog >> http://www.nextnow.org -- NN Collaboratory Blog >> >> ================================== >> >> "Play with boundaries, not within." >> >> >> Archives >> >> !DSPAM:2676,4a72ede325631738712442! >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 07:03:15 2009 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:03:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter? In-Reply-To: <701af9f70906302036j6c139645h3d4d96d9753ef558@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A4AA107.6090302@gmail.com> <701af9f70906302036j6c139645h3d4d96d9753ef558@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <58762b1a0907020403l57211108ta33507ce9827d426@mail.gmail.com> My take on the whole thing is here: http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/green-dam-is-breachednow-what.html Rebecca On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > For details on what's recently been taken care of: http://ciirc.china.cn/ > -- Rebecca MacKinnon Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong UK: +44-7759-863406 USA: +1-617-939-3493 HK: +852-6334-8843 Mainland China: +86-13710820364 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 2 13:24:41 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] China backs down on filter? Message-ID: <161601.47895.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Prior Restraint* is the leading cause of ignorance and lack of progress in International, National, Local, home and personal activity. It infects business, creativity, human rights and peace.   When doing business, may I say especially in Asia, one must not take a statement of restriction as meaning more or less than, "the burden is on you, to show the benefits of your desired action or our inaction".  Public statements and "face" are like the western politicians' "lets float it out there and see what happens" -- while maintaining deniability.   Of course what do I know?   *I use this term in a manner related to the human condition and will.  The "I can't" or the "I am not good enough" syndromes. But mostly it is that thought prior to taking action that reviews "will it work, is it worth it, can it be done and worst of all "what if I fail?" Legally: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html Philosophically: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=5F4DB6E45D154BDC949C07A437CFE95D?contentType=Book&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1757266 Please note that as a avid copywriter I respect the money end of this link --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: From: Rebecca MacKinnon Subject: Re: [governance] China backs down on filter? To: "Fouad Bajwa" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 11:03 AM My take on the whole thing is here: http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/green-dam-is-breachednow-what.html Rebecca On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: For details on what's recently been taken care of: http://ciirc.china.cn/ -- Rebecca MacKinnon Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong UK: +44-7759-863406 USA: +1-617-939-3493 HK: +852-6334-8843 Mainland China: +86-13710820364 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Jul 3 04:05:46 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] looking for Eritrean contacts with knowledge on internet censorship Message-ID: <437288.97668.qm@web58907.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hi all, A friend of mine is interested in contacting people in Eritrea to get a handle on internet censorship in the country. It's preferable to get contacts within the country that are knowledgeable on these issues, but second best is people with a knowledge of the issues in the country. Any contacts can be forwarded to me directly and I'll pass them on and they'll get in touch. My friend is working as a consultant for Sesawe - see https://www.sesawe.net/. Cheers David --------- David Goldstein email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au web: http://davidgoldstein.tel/ http://goldsteinreport.com/ phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home mail: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Jul 3 06:48:44 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:48:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] new gTLD consultation Message-ID: Hi, GNSO staff have asked me to call this to people's attention. There will be a New gTLDs global outreach and consultation event in London on 15 July 2009 at the Royal Institute of British Architects, 66 Portland Place, London, W1B 1AD. It's free and open to anyone interested in knowing more about the program, sharing views, etc. http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/ Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 07:41:54 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:41:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social networkings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70907030441n5e704392jce4142825b5352ed@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patricia Peña Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:38 PM Subject: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social networkings To: apc.forum at lists.apc.org hello all just to share you the situation that actually is happening in Honduras after a military strike last sunday ... of course the latinamerican and international reject of the situation (including NU Gral Asambley) but the internal situation is very complicated for people, and what is happening  is again people,  civil society organizations, independient and community media (radios especially) and women organizations are using use emails, your tube and others social networking to  break the internal informative censorship that has been imposed by the "new" authorities .. even when in the capital Tegucigalpa, they have been suffering of lack of energy and therefore of Internet conectitvity I share with you some material from latinamerican independient media that are broacasting any of this contributions Special from Radio Internacional Feminista - FIRE, Costa Rica http://www.fire.or.cr/ News agency Pulsar http://www.agenciapulsar.org/coberturas_det2.php?id=65 Images, protests http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NOmCMUqKXc&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUZih_qMUPM&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Alrvpjy0fM Sorry because all of these is in spanish regards patricia -- Patricia Peña M. email: patipena at gmail.com My networks groups ::Equipo Conexión Social // Radio Tierra, Santiago Chile :: Promoviendo el libre acceso a las TICs y conocimiento www.conexionsocial.cl www.radiotierra.cl :: Grupo de Trabajo Mujeres en Conexión - Chile http://www.mujeresenconexion.org ::Comunidad LIDERA (Liderazgos para las Democracias, Bolivia-Perú-Chile) http://www.proyectolidera.org ::red Ciudadanía Digital- Chile:: http://www.ciudadaniadigital.cl ======================================= APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more democratic and egalitarian societies. _______________________________________________ apc.forum mailing list apc.forum at lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 4 13:16:33 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social networkings Message-ID: <111690.24061.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please explain some wonderments in your post:   >From who to who --- no need for specifics but the general concept of who is writing.   I am not concerned if you think this rude; So I ask: Your name is neither norte nor sud American, neither hispanic nor amerindian.  Please explain your connection.   Why the bent on feminism in these links?  Not a good or bad concept just distinct in that the population of Honduras is very equal split.  The protestors via camera are about 80 men. The talking heads about 80 percent women.   I am also missing an age spread -- almost all middle aged. 30-50.   I am not reading any great distinction between what is and what should be. What exactly do the protestors want?     references: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/XX.html  just for stats. Historical cause of conflict: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8120161.stm clearly a power struggle with both sides screwing the constitution and democracy.   Blame it on free trade: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/03/09/cafta90days.pdf not really but ----  that is how "watch" makes its contributions.   Just go down about 4-5 paragraphs in this article - I ain't saying but it seems like maybe the Holy See runs this  country; http://www.anglicanjournal.com/pwrdf/049/article/carey-lends-political-clout/?cHash=7dfc2aab5d       --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: From: Fouad Bajwa Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social networkings To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, July 3, 2009, 11:41 AM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patricia Peña Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:38 PM Subject: [APC Forum] Honduras crisis and social networkings To: apc.forum at lists.apc.org hello all just to share you the situation that actually is happening in Honduras after a military strike last sunday ... of course the latinamerican and international reject of the situation (including NU Gral Asambley) but the internal situation is very complicated for people, and what is happening  is again people,  civil society organizations, independient and community media (radios especially) and women organizations are using use emails, your tube and others social networking to  break the internal informative censorship that has been imposed by the "new" authorities .. even when in the capital Tegucigalpa, they have been suffering of lack of energy and therefore of Internet conectitvity I share with you some material from latinamerican independient media that are broacasting any of this contributions Special from Radio Internacional Feminista - FIRE, Costa Rica http://www.fire.or.cr/ News agency Pulsar http://www.agenciapulsar.org/coberturas_det2.php?id=65 Images, protests http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NOmCMUqKXc&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUZih_qMUPM&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Alrvpjy0fM Sorry because all of these is in spanish regards patricia -- Patricia Peña M. email: patipena at gmail.com My networks groups ::Equipo Conexión Social // Radio Tierra, Santiago Chile :: Promoviendo el libre acceso a las TICs y conocimiento www.conexionsocial.cl www.radiotierra.cl :: Grupo de Trabajo Mujeres en Conexión - Chile http://www.mujeresenconexion.org ::Comunidad LIDERA (Liderazgos para las Democracias, Bolivia-Perú-Chile) http://www.proyectolidera.org ::red Ciudadanía Digital- Chile:: http://www.ciudadaniadigital.cl ======================================= APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more democratic and egalitarian societies. _______________________________________________ apc.forum mailing list apc.forum at lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kpeters at tldainc.org Sat Jul 4 15:11:03 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:11:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! Message-ID: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> All international observers, Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it international exposure. Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!! SPANISH > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los cristianos en particular > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de gran elogio. > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo, el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente. > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009. > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada “golpe de Estado” pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente Constitucional. > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales, en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente. > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a dudar de que se ha hecho lo > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo 21! > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida. > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana. ____________________________________________________________ ENGLISH CITIZEN’S POSITION STATEMENT – www.enpazylibertad.org Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural, and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great praise. In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General’s office, and the National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat. As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009. The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a “coup d’état,” because it does not comply with two fundamental characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a new Constitutional President. Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and patriotism,20has not been well received by the international community.  Quite the opposite is true.  The OAS, the UN and even the United States have pressured this small nation to the point of threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led to its citizens deposing its President. There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true convictions on democracy will be sorely tried.  Many will begin to doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the terrible pressure of the International community.  Still others will be shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision.  Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the country?  Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century! God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma facing Honduras.  He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him with intense, sincere faith.  Let us pray that the new authorities in Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for the Honduran family to remain united. We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your State Senator, and your President. We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations, and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ronda.netizen at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 16:02:40 2009 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 16:02:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - not appropriate topic for Message-ID: The post by Karl E Peters is not an appropriate post for this list on Internet governance. It is not only a problem that the President of a country is hijacked out of the country by force, but now we see a supposed justification for this action on a mailing list about a totally unrelated topic. I am sure that those who want to find some means of having such debate can find related lists, but this is not such a list. I hope that the subject matter of this list will be respected. Thanks. Ronda On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Karl E. Peters wrote: > All international observers, > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it > international exposure. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 5 00:55:37 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - not appropriate topic for Message-ID: <161543.56670.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Mia Culpa,   Little to do with Internet Governance.   Eric --- On Sat, 7/4/09, Ronda Hauben wrote: From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Honduras - not appropriate topic for To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl E. Peters" Cc: "ronda hauben" Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 8:02 PM The post by Karl E Peters is not an appropriate post for this list on Internet governance.   It is not only a problem that the President of a country is hijacked out of the country by force, but now we see a supposed justification for this action on a mailing list about a totally unrelated topic. I am sure that those who want to find some means of having such debate can find related lists, but this is not such a list. I hope that the subject matter of this list will be respected. Thanks. Ronda   On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Karl E. Peters wrote: All international observers,     Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it international exposure.     ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Jul 5 05:03:32 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:03:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list Message-ID: Hi, Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would think this is an important thing to do. Comments on the review process so far are at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView (Great URL, I love the website ;-) The questions we are asked to address are: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? 7. Do you have any other comments? Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jul 5 06:49:54 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:49:54 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Bill, I¹m moving house over the next ten days and will not be able to participate much if at all. However, Our three most recent submissions to IGF on this particular subject can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org/statements (One carries the subject Role of IGF) Many of us also made individual submissions which can be found at the url you mention below. I note there is no IGC statement as such in this latest round, so it would be nice I guess even if we have nothing new to say. I don¹t think our answers will have changed much since our last submissions on this subject. But if there are substantive new things we want to say and can agree to, by all means lets express them here and see if there is anything new to add to this. On 5/07/09 7:03 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi, > > Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is this > still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. It's been > quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC > discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven years > ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there. For example, do we > not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by the July 15 > deadline? We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and people > indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a statement of > more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given > the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm > synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would think > this is an important thing to do. > > Comments on the review process so far are at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformna > me=FormalConsult032009ListView > (Great URL, I love the website ;-) > > The questions we are asked to address are: > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the > Tunis Agenda? > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it > impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as > a catalyst for change? > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, > including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), > Secretariat and open consultations? > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and > why/why not? > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would > you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? > > Best, > > Bill > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > > *********************************************************** > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 07:54:59 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:24:59 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com> Hi everyone, I second Bill in repeating my invitation to anyone who would like to propose a draft for an IGC statement. I agree that we have time to reach consensus. Bill, did you have a first draft? Anyone? Best, Ginger William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is > this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. > It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are > in the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established > the list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues > out there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement > on the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary > discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some > focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple > paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather > variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm > synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would > think this is an important thing to do. > > Comments on the review process so far are at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView > (Great URL, I love the website ;-) > > The questions we are asked to address are: > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? > Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > > *********************************************************** > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 08:18:30 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:48:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com> References: <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger, I have a Diplo exam for the next two days, may not be able to propose a draft, but would be eager to partidcipate with comments and suggestions if someone proposes a draft. Shiva. On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > I second Bill in repeating my invitation to anyone who would like to > propose a draft for an IGC statement. I agree that we have time to reach > consensus. Bill, did you have a first draft? Anyone? > > Best, > Ginger > > William Drake wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is >> this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. It's >> been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC >> discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven >> years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there. For >> example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by >> the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and >> people indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a >> statement of more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors >> renewal. Given the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat >> (for the Sharm synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, >> one would think this is an important thing to do. >> Comments on the review process so far are at >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView >> (Great URL, I love the website ;-) >> >> The questions we are asked to address are: >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the >> Tunis Agenda? >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it >> impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted >> as a catalyst for change? >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, >> including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), >> Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF >> past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html < >> http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html> >> *********************************************************** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kpeters at tldainc.org Mon Jul 6 10:22:13 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:22:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org> If I might add one further question to the very interesting questions of Mr. Drake; To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet as it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies and does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than answers to all the other questions combined. Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question but would welcome thought out response! -Karl E. Peters kpeters at tldainc.org Quoting William Drake : > Hi, > > Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is > this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. > It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in > the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the > list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out > there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on > the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary > discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some > focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple > paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather > variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm > synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would > think this is an important thing to do. > > Comments on the review process so far are at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView > (Great URL, I love the website ;-) > > The questions we are asked to address are: > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? > Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ 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 From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jul 6 10:32:42 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:32:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI References: <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871929D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi for people who are interested in lessons from history: Here is a very personal piece where I remember Leipzig 1989 where the "candle revolution" startet to bring the Berlin wall down and to end the cold war. BTW, in one part of the interview I compare the 1989 "bottom up" movement in East Germany and the "round tables" where policy was developed in 1989 and 1990 with the innovative foms we are exploring now with Internet Governance, its principle of multistakeholderism and the open and transparent biottom up policy development processes. :-)))) Wolfgang http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_806_Rembering_A_Revolution.mp3/view ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 10:48:50 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:18:50 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org> References: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org> Message-ID: <4A520ED2.1000908@gmail.com> IG issues are not restricted, except that they should be coherent and follow general rules of netiquette. (This is the Internet governance caucus list. IGF policy should be confirmed with the IGF Secretariat). I assume by "dumb" silence, you mean mute. Certainly silence is preferable to meaningless posts for the sake of posting. My personal experience is that people answer posts that interest and motivate them. I have found that if I am trying to push a non-essential or untimely issue, people do not answer me. There is certainly no obligation (or even expectation) for anyone to answer any post. If some people get more response than others, I assume it is because they are posting information and discussions that are more relevant to the list. Regards, Ginger kpeters at tldainc.org wrote: > If I might add one further question to the very interesting > questions of Mr. Drake; > > To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet as > it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies and > does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic > internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on > the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity > outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely > ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is > this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear > answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than > answers to all the other questions combined. > Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question > but would welcome thought out response! > > -Karl E. Peters > kpeters at tldainc.org > > Quoting William Drake : > >> Hi, >> >> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is >> this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. >> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in >> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the >> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out >> there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on >> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary >> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some >> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple >> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather >> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm >> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would >> think this is an important thing to do. >> >> Comments on the review process so far are at >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView >> >> (Great URL, I love the website ;-) >> >> The questions we are asked to address are: >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? >> Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >> *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jul 6 10:52:15 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:52:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: References: <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EC87@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Likewise I can't start a draft, but promise to criticize whoever does, I mean offer constructive suggestions for refinement : ) ________________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:18 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list Hello Ginger, I have a Diplo exam for the next two days, may not be able to propose a draft, but would be eager to partidcipate with comments and suggestions if someone proposes a draft. Shiva. On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: Hi everyone, I second Bill in repeating my invitation to anyone who would like to propose a draft for an IGC statement. I agree that we have time to reach consensus. Bill, did you have a first draft? Anyone? Best, Ginger William Drake wrote: Hi, Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would think this is an important thing to do. Comments on the review process so far are at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView (Great URL, I love the website ;-) The questions we are asked to address are: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? 7. Do you have any other comments? Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 11:01:41 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:31:41 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EC87@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A51E613.2060601@gmail.com>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259EC87@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A5211D5.1020606@gmail.com> Thanks, Lee. Perhaps you or others could each just answer one of the 7 questions pointed out by Bill Drake (repeated here for your reference) or even address one issue of their preference to be included in a group statement. Bill? Anyone? The questions we are asked to address are: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? 7. Do you have any other comments? Lee W McKnight wrote: > Likewise I can't start a draft, but promise to criticize whoever does, I mean offer constructive suggestions for refinement : ) > ________________________________________ > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:18 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Cc: William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list > > Hello Ginger, > > I have a Diplo exam for the next two days, may not be able to propose a draft, but would be eager to partidcipate with comments and suggestions if someone proposes a draft. > > Shiva. > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > Hi everyone, > I second Bill in repeating my invitation to anyone who would like to propose a draft for an IGC statement. I agree that we have time to reach consensus. Bill, did you have a first draft? Anyone? > > Best, > Ginger > > William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would think this is an important thing to do. > Comments on the review process so far are at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView > (Great URL, I love the website ;-) > > The questions we are asked to address are: > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jul 6 15:32:00 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:32:00 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org> Message-ID: Hi Karl, Yes, this list can tend to become ICANN-obsessed, and to a lesser degree this is also true of IGF. I agree this is not a good thing either for this list or for a sensible discussion of internet governance and where it should head. But I think the reality we face is that it is far easier to criticise an incumbent organisation with all its faults than to take a broader view of internet governance and gain support and understanding for the larger scale governance issues the Internet is going to face. Yes, it's a problem, but how we move to the bigger picture escapes me at this point of time... On 7/07/09 12:22 AM, "kpeters at tldainc.org" wrote: > If I might add one further question to the very interesting > questions of Mr. Drake; > > To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet > as it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies > and does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic > internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on > the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity > outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely > ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is > this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear > answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than > answers to all the other questions combined. > Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question > but would welcome thought out response! > > -Karl E. Peters > kpeters at tldainc.org > > Quoting William Drake : > >> Hi, >> >> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is >> this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. >> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in >> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the >> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out >> there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on >> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary >> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some >> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple >> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather >> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm >> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would >> think this is an important thing to do. >> >> Comments on the review process so far are at >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformn >> ame=FormalConsult032009ListView >> (Great URL, I love the website ;-) >> >> The questions we are asked to address are: >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? >> Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >> *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From kpeters at tldainc.org Mon Jul 6 15:59:53 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:59:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090706145953.voffqvrr40k4w0gs@www.tldainc.org> Thank you, With great appreciation for your candor and your reasoning for why things as they are, there is hope that perhaps there is a future beyond ICANN for such a group as this! As you already know, I tend to think way outside the ICANN "box" already, perhaps a bit too early! But, however, I believe it is with its value. ANY time I might lend some perspective on things from outside the box in a constructive way, I will do so. Otherwise I will try to stay out of the way of the ICANN march. Even for those dedicated to ICANN for whatever expensive and innefficien reason they may have, there is a great benefit in knowing how the rest of the world sees them and how it plans to work around ICANN unless it learns to complete, not just for DoC handouts of power and authority, but in a real marketplace and purely market based roots again spring up, this time with more zeal and hope than before. ICANN must also remember its very sad history of running roughshod over those it does not benefit from and favoring those that jump through its hoops and pay its fees. I speak, of course, of the .Biz issue of several years ago. Thanks again for a voice of candor and reason in this group! It was most refreshing AND HOPEFUL... -Karl E. Peters Quoting Ian Peter : > Hi Karl, > > Yes, this list can tend to become ICANN-obsessed, and to a lesser degree > this is also true of IGF. I agree this is not a good thing either for this > list or for a sensible discussion of internet governance and where it should > head. > > But I think the reality we face is that it is far easier to criticise an > incumbent organisation with all its faults than to take a broader view of > internet governance and gain support and understanding for the larger scale > governance issues the Internet is going to face. Yes, it's a problem, but > how we move to the bigger picture escapes me at this point of time... > > > > > On 7/07/09 12:22 AM, "kpeters at tldainc.org" wrote: > >> If I might add one further question to the very interesting >> questions of Mr. Drake; >> >> To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet >> as it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies >> and does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic >> internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on >> the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity >> outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely >> ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is >> this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear >> answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than >> answers to all the other questions combined. >> Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question >> but would welcome thought out response! >> >> -Karl E. Peters >> kpeters at tldainc.org >> >> Quoting William Drake : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is >>> this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. >>> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in >>> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the >>> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out >>> there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on >>> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary >>> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some >>> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple >>> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather >>> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm >>> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would >>> think this is an important thing to do. >>> >>> Comments on the review process so far are at >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformn >>> ame=FormalConsult032009ListView >>> (Great URL, I love the website ;-) >>> >>> The questions we are asked to address are: >>> >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >>> the Tunis Agenda? >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? >>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group >>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>> processes? >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> Senior Associate >>> Centre for International Governance >>> Graduate Institute of International and >>> Development Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >>> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 16:00:46 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 01:30:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: References: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org> Message-ID: Hello Ian One reason why there has been so much focus on ICANN related issues is that it has been a crucial point of time for ICANN with the new CEO selection process, review of JPA, the issues related to new gTLDs and the introduction of IDNs. The participants of the list have possibly been concerned about what is happening to and at ICANN as ICANN happens to be very important. That is possibly the reason for Karl's perception but the observation that the participants are not interested in issues beyond those in ICANN's realm is not right. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Karl, > > Yes, this list can tend to become ICANN-obsessed, and to a lesser degree > this is also true of IGF. I agree this is not a good thing either for this > list or for a sensible discussion of internet governance and where it > should > head. > > But I think the reality we face is that it is far easier to criticise an > incumbent organisation with all its faults than to take a broader view of > internet governance and gain support and understanding for the larger scale > governance issues the Internet is going to face. Yes, it's a problem, but > how we move to the bigger picture escapes me at this point of time... > > > > > On 7/07/09 12:22 AM, "kpeters at tldainc.org" wrote: > > > If I might add one further question to the very interesting > > questions of Mr. Drake; > > > > To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet > > as it relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies > > and does it in fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic > > internet (for better or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on > > the international scene? Every time I have mentioned internet activity > > outside of ICANN, this list, as it is very good at doing, completely > > ignores the subject as if not seeing it will make it not exist. Is > > this an IGF policy? Is your future tied exclusively to ICANN? Clear > > answers to these questions will tell a lot more about your future than > > answers to all the other questions combined. > > Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question > > but would welcome thought out response! > > > > -Karl E. Peters > > kpeters at tldainc.org > > > > Quoting William Drake : > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is > >> this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. > >> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in > >> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the > >> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out > >> there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on > >> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary > >> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some > >> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple > >> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather > >> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm > >> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would > >> think this is an important thing to do. > >> > >> Comments on the review process so far are at > >> > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformn > >> ame=FormalConsult032009ListView > >> (Great URL, I love the website ;-) > >> > >> The questions we are asked to address are: > >> > >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > >> the Tunis Agenda? > >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > >> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? > >> Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > >> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > >> mandate, and why/why not? > >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > >> processes? > >> 7. Do you have any other comments? > >> > >> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> *********************************************************** > >> William J. Drake > >> Senior Associate > >> Centre for International Governance > >> Graduate Institute of International and > >> Development Studies > >> Geneva, Switzerland > >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > >> *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From charityg at diplomacy.edu Mon Jul 6 17:17:18 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:17:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: <4A520ED2.1000908@gmail.com> References: <20090706092213.yltpka4w84ckgw84@www.tldainc.org> <4A520ED2.1000908@gmail.com> Message-ID: I feel the same way at times, Ginger. If I have something constructive to say here, then I comment. If I don't say anything, it doesn't mean I completely ignore what is being passed around here. I listen and if I feel that discussion needs my expert knowledge, then I say something. People are different in many ways and it goes to say that they react differently, too. I suppose we can always reply "here" the same way the teacher calls out our name during attendance. Some do raise their hand silently. But if there is a need to be more verbal, like what a teacher does, "kindly-please-speak-up" should be conveyed to the list. I agree that people tend to ignore topics that they are not conversant with. That is to be expected. Only a fool tries to pass off himself/herself as an authority on everything. Consequently, we tend to restrict ourselves to areas where we have some expertise and therefore, can positively contribute. It so happen that there are a lot of issues going around ICANN that basically a lot of people have to comment on. For instance, you asked, Karl, if our future is tied with ICANN. I cannot exactly say that it's "everything" for us but we do know that there are issues around ICANN that affect us in the Philippines. We have issues in ISOC PH that concern the .ph domain dispute and some felt there was some progress when Twomey was the CEO. We don't know yet how Beckstrom will be like. But our concern now is having a GAC rep from the Philippines who would work more for the betterment of Filipinos rather than enjoy the perks of being a GAC rep. We are trying to nominate a GAC rep to the CICT (Commission of Information and Comm Technology) and hoping we can resolve our own local issues. We try to. So you cannot blame us if we tend to speak up on issues that can affect us. Regards, Charity Gamboa-Embley ISOC PH IGWG Chairperson On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > IG issues are not restricted, except that they should be coherent and > follow general rules of netiquette. (This is the Internet governance caucus > list. IGF policy should be confirmed with the IGF Secretariat). > > I assume by "dumb" silence, you mean mute. Certainly silence is preferable > to meaningless posts for the sake of posting. > > My personal experience is that people answer posts that interest and > motivate them. I have found that if I am trying to push a non-essential or > untimely issue, people do not answer me. There is certainly no obligation > (or even expectation) for anyone to answer any post. If some people get more > response than others, I assume it is because they are posting information > and discussions that are more relevant to the list. > > Regards, > Ginger > > > kpeters at tldainc.org wrote: > >> If I might add one further question to the very interesting questions >> of Mr. Drake; >> >> To what extent does this forum restrict itself to the internet as it >> relatres to ICANN and the US DoC to resolve internet policies and does it in >> fact have the freedom to discuss the real and dynamic internet (for better >> or worse) making ICANN less and less relevant on the international scene? >> Every time I have mentioned internet activity outside of ICANN, this list, >> as it is very good at doing, completely ignores the subject as if not seeing >> it will make it not exist. Is this an IGF policy? Is your future tied >> exclusively to ICANN? Clear answers to these questions will tell a lot more >> about your future than answers to all the other questions combined. >> Based on past experience, I expect dumb silence to this question but >> would welcome thought out response! >> >> -Karl E. Peters >> kpeters at tldainc.org >> >> Quoting William Drake : >> >> Hi, >>> >>> Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is >>> this still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. >>> It's been quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in >>> the IGC discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the >>> list seven years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out >>> there. For example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on >>> the IGF review by the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary >>> discussion on this in May and people indicated a preference for some >>> focused dialogue leading to a statement of more than a couple >>> paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors renewal. Given the rather >>> variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat (for the Sharm >>> synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, one would >>> think this is an important thing to do. >>> >>> Comments on the review process so far are at >>> >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView >>> (Great URL, I love the website ;-) >>> >>> The questions we are asked to address are: >>> >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >>> the Tunis Agenda? >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? >>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group >>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>> processes? >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> Senior Associate >>> Centre for International Governance >>> Graduate Institute of International and >>> Development Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >>> *********************************************************** >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 6 23:35:57 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 20:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC on its list Message-ID: <486545.56416.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> As for me I am just tooo darn shy, --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Charity Gamboa wrote: I feel the same way at times, Ginger. If I have something constructive to say here, then I comment. If I don't say anything,   Let us begin by being easy:   The questions we are asked to address are: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? 1a.  To date it has communicated to one another its thoughts and impressions as to how it relates to current global governance. It has recently done this on an individual basis. It has maintained open dialogue so that when matters of concern are needed to be addressed we know each other and have ready lines and understandings. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? 2a It has not. If any such embodiment is occurring it is an accident of intellectualism or reflective of the fact that the WSIS principles are in line with general international thought on an issue. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? 3a As for this list: we have complied wholeheartedly with the directives and principles as set forth in 72 found at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf   We have engaged in debate and the exchange of information. We have brought to light matters that without a governance disclosure list such as this would not be otherwise well discussed. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 4a They do not. The participation therein is a reflection of failure. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? 5a Absolutely and unequivicably yes. Regardless of volume of participation the outlet and coordination of open discussions is  more valuable than any existing governing body. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? 6a Increase outreach. Increase forums on differing levels of communications. Increase the availability of lists that will allow pundits to listen to actually nonfunctioning scenarios and obtain grassroot perceptions of IG. 7. Do you have any other comments? 7a Ours is not the task of evaluation. Ours must always be the task of further inquiry and reflection on the data gained. Openness and relaxed restrictions and more participation and broader visions of reality are and should be our goals. If we are to truly be a list of governance we must always Question Authority. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Jul 7 05:23:15 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:23:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! In-Reply-To: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <32789345.51778.1246958595721.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19> What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ? Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ? Ban this from our List ! Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 04/07/09 21:11 > De : "Karl E. Peters" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! > > > All international observers, > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it > international exposure. > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!! > > SPANISH > > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los cristianos en particular > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de gran elogio. > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo, el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente. > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009. > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada “golpe de Estado” pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente Constitucional. > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales, en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente. > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a dudar de que se ha hecho lo > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo 21! > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida. > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > ENGLISH > > CITIZEN’S POSITION STATEMENT – www.enpazylibertad.org > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural, > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great > praise. > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General’s office, and the > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat. > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009. > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a > “coup d’état,” because it does not comply with two fundamental > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a > new Constitutional President. > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international > community. Quite the opposite is true. The OAS, the UN and even the > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led > to its citizens deposing its President. > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried. Many will begin to > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the > terrible pressure of the International community. Still others will be > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision. > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the > country? Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century! > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma > facing Honduras. He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him > with intense, sincere faith. Let us pray that the new authorities in > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for > the Honduran family to remain united. > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your > State Senator, and your President. > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations, > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 07:33:37 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:33:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! In-Reply-To: <32789345.51778.1246958595721.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19> References: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <32789345.51778.1246958595721.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19> Message-ID: Somehow, whereas I recognise that this is not the right forum for this discusion, I cannot help thinking that in different circumstances (different countries, different ideologies) this matter would be enjoying much more attention ... ........ but then again, it has always been that that way .... Best regrads, Rui 2009/7/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > > What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ? > > Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ? > > Ban this from our List ! > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > Message du 04/07/09 21:11 > > De : "Karl E. Peters" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! > > > > > > > All international observers, > > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and > > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired > > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it > > international exposure. > > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the > > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down > > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!! > > > > SPANISH > > > > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional > > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los > cristianos en particular > > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos > latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, > social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días > este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de > gran elogio. > > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo, > el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión > Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la > Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente. > > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos > establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como > Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009. > > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada “golpe de > Estado” pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este > fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por > > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las > medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden > judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba > siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las > iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente > Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus > actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la > Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del > poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente > Constitucional. > > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales, > en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y > el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. > Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los > Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de > amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir > esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio > de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente > condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente. > > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su > verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a > dudar de que se ha hecho lo > > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad > internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en > contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez > cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora > de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo > 21! > > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta > Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y > sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia > ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno > se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y > oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida. > > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que > escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro > nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a > fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar > juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > ENGLISH > > > > CITIZEN’S POSITION STATEMENT – www.enpazylibertad.org > > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from > > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural, > > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and > > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great > > praise. > > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme > > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General’s office, and the > > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the > > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat. > > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as > > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as > > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009. > > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a > > “coup d’état,” because it does not comply with two fundamental > > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic > > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of > > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based > > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which > > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the > > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President > > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal > > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the > > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the > > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a > > new Constitutional President. > > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in > > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and > > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international > > community. Quite the opposite is true. The OAS, the UN and even the > > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of > > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this > > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the > > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led > > to its citizens deposing its President. > > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true > > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried. Many will begin to > > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the > > terrible pressure of the International community. Still others will be > > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision. > > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the > > country? Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles > > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century! > > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma > > facing Honduras. He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him > > with intense, sincere faith. Let us pray that the new authorities in > > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they > > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for > > the Honduran family to remain united. > > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as > > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your > > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber > > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your > > State Senator, and your President. > > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our > > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations, > > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in > > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kpeters at tldainc.org Tue Jul 7 07:46:34 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:46:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! In-Reply-To: References: <20090704121103.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.c66b80353c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <32789345.51778.1246958595721.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e19> Message-ID: <20090707064634.0rk53bmz484k4ww4@www.tldainc.org> Thank you for your understanding! I know this was not internet governance related, but was approached by desparate Honduran friends to get their side of the story out to the world. I wrongly assumed that this group of supposedly civil society folk would welcome the voice of the missunderstood and perhaps apply this knowledge in their civil service duties in their respective countries. Again, I was wrong. Thanks for your understanding, however, singular as it was!!! -Karl Quoting Rui Correia : > Somehow, whereas I recognise that this is not the right forum for this > discusion, I cannot help thinking that in different circumstances (different > countries, different ideologies) this matter would be enjoying much more > attention ... > > ........ but then again, it has always been that that way .... > > Best regrads, > > Rui > > > > > 2009/7/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > >> >> What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ? >> >> Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ? >> >> Ban this from our List ! >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> > Message du 04/07/09 21:11 >> > De : "Karl E. Peters" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! >> >> > >> > >> > All international observers, >> > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and >> > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired >> > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it >> > international exposure. >> > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the >> > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down >> > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!! >> > >> > SPANISH >> > >> > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional >> > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los >> cristianos en particular >> > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos >> latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, >> social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días >> este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de >> gran elogio. >> > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo, >> el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión >> Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la >> Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente. >> > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos >> establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como >> Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009. >> > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada "golpe de >> Estado" pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este >> fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por >> > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las >> medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden >> judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba >> siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las >> iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente >> Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus >> actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la >> Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del >> poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente >> Constitucional. >> > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales, >> en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y >> el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. >> Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los >> Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de >> amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir >> esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio >> de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente >> condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente. >> > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su >> verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a >> dudar de que se ha hecho lo >> > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad >> internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en >> contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez >> cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora >> de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo >> 21! >> > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta >> Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y >> sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia >> ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno >> se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y >> oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida. >> > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que >> escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro >> nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a >> fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar >> juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana. >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> > ENGLISH >> > >> > CITIZEN'S POSITION STATEMENT - www.enpazylibertad.org >> > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from >> > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural, >> > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and >> > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great >> > praise. >> > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme >> > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General's office, and the >> > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the >> > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat. >> > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as >> > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as >> > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009. >> > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a >> > "coup d'état," because it does not comply with two fundamental >> > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic >> > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of >> > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based >> > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which >> > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the >> > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President >> > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal >> > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the >> > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the >> > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a >> > new Constitutional President. >> > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in >> > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and >> > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international >> > community. Quite the opposite is true. The OAS, the UN and even the >> > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of >> > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this >> > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the >> > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led >> > to its citizens deposing its President. >> > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true >> > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried. Many will begin to >> > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the >> > terrible pressure of the International community. Still others will be >> > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision. >> > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the >> > country? Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles >> > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century! >> > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma >> > facing Honduras. He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him >> > with intense, sincere faith. Let us pray that the new authorities in >> > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they >> > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for >> > the Honduran family to remain united. >> > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as >> > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your >> > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber >> > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your >> > State Senator, and your President. >> > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our >> > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations, >> > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in >> > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend. >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> >> > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 07:56:11 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:56:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Bill and Karl I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm. regards, Rui 2009/7/5 William Drake > Hi, > Skimming and deleting over morning coffee, a random thought occurs: is this > still the listserv of the IGC? It hasn't been obvious of late. It's been > quite awhile since there much traffic from people who are in the IGC > discussing the sort of concerns for which we established the list seven > years ago, and it's not like there are no live issues out there. For > example, do we not intend to submit a group statement on the IGF review by > the July 15 deadline? We had some preliminary discussion on this in May and > people indicated a preference for some focused dialogue leading to a > statement of more than a couple paragraphs outlining why the caucus favors > renewal. Given the rather variable inputs the UN and the IGF secretariat > (for the Sharm synthesis paper) will be receiving from member governments, > one would think this is an important thing to do. > > Comments on the review process so far are at > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009ListView > (Great URL, I love the website ;-) > > The questions we are asked to address are: > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the > Tunis Agenda? > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it > impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted > as a catalyst for change? > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, > including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), > Secretariat and open consultations? > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, > and why/why not? > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would > you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > Surely we can manage answers to these in the next ten days, no? > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 7 10:04:52 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - My take of the story! Message-ID: <230202.24759.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Gentlemen,   The Question that is Honduras is appropriate for this list.  In my defense, I was trying to get to the issues of who and why the data we were getting was "off norm". My hope was to get some substance to the obvious answer -- the internet!   You folks just tried to get to heartstrings instead of, or skipping over, the internet and its role in a political transition. Just like Somalia, Iraq and Iran and now Afganistan the Honduras are being known about through the net. How that net is governed as a catalyst for understanding is critical to its continued success as an eye opener.*    But lest we forget there are factors we must keep in the forefront. Education is marketing and marketing is education. In developing nations progression as in revolutions the work must be done outside to inside, inside to inside, outside to outside and finally inside to outside. The Honduras are a case for a digital divide. Access to information is a keystone. Those that are savy obtain the information and then relate it to others. So now we must watch and learn how the savy use that technology -- for themselves or for their countrymen.   Again I ask; Why the overload of women? Why the dearth of 20 to 30? Where is the highly sophisticated and tech savy Holy See? Just how is the Internet access being used and controlled? *look at the questions being asked for IGF and how they directly apply to Iran and Honduras. --- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org wrote: From: kpeters at tldainc.org Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Rui Correia" Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:46 AM Thank you for your understanding! I know this was not internet  governance related, but was approached by desparate Honduran friends  to get their side of the story out to the world. I wrongly assumed  that this group of supposedly civil society folk would welcome the  voice of the missunderstood and perhaps apply this knowledge in their  civil service duties in their respective countries. Again, I was  wrong.   Thanks for your understanding, however, singular as it was!!! -Karl Quoting Rui Correia : > Somehow, whereas I recognise that this is not the right forum for this > discusion, I cannot help thinking that in different circumstances (different > countries, different ideologies) this matter would be enjoying much more > attention ... > > ........ but then again, it has always been that that way .... > > Best regrads, > > Rui > > > > > 2009/7/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > >> >> What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ? >> >> Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ? >> >> Ban this from our List ! >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> > Message du 04/07/09 21:11 >> > De : "Karl E. Peters" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! >> >> > >> > >> > All international observers, >> > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and >> > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired >> > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it >> > international exposure. >> > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the >> > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down >> > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!! >> > >> > SPANISH >> > >> > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional >> > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los >> cristianos en particular >> > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos >> latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, >> social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días >> este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de >> gran elogio. >> > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo, >> el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión >> Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la >> Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente. >> > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos >> establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como >> Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009. >> > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada "golpe de >> Estado" pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este >> fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por >> > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las >> medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden >> judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba >> siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las >> iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente >> Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus >> actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la >> Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del >> poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente >> Constitucional. >> > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales, >> en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y >> el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. >> Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los >> Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de >> amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir >> esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio >> de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente >> condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente. >> > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su >> verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a >> dudar de que se ha hecho lo >> > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad >> internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en >> contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez >> cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora >> de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo >> 21! >> > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta >> Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y >> sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia >> ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno >> se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y >> oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida. >> > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que >> escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro >> nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a >> fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar >> juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana. >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> > ENGLISH >> > >> > CITIZEN'S POSITION STATEMENT - www.enpazylibertad.org >> > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from >> > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural, >> > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and >> > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great >> > praise. >> > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme >> > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General's office, and the >> > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the >> > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat. >> > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as >> > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as >> > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009. >> > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a >> > "coup d'état," because it does not comply with two fundamental >> > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic >> > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of >> > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based >> > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which >> > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the >> > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President >> > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal >> > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the >> > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the >> > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a >> > new Constitutional President. >> > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in >> > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and >> > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international >> > community.  Quite the opposite is true.  The OAS, the UN and even the >> > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of >> > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this >> > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the >> > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led >> > to its citizens deposing its President. >> > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true >> > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried.  Many will begin to >> > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the >> > terrible pressure of the International community.  Still others will be >> > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision. >> > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the >> > country?  Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles >> > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century! >> > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma >> > facing Honduras.  He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him >> > with intense, sincere faith.  Let us pray that the new authorities in >> > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they >> > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for >> > the Honduran family to remain united. >> > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as >> > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your >> > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber >> > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your >> > State Senator, and your President. >> > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our >> > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations, >> > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in >> > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend. >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> >> > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kpeters at tldainc.org Tue Jul 7 10:07:11 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:07:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090707090711.vznsv4f4w0sgo804@www.tldainc.org> While there is certainly room for difference of perspective, it seems to me that ICANN has met every demand for greater accountability or openness with a new layer of bureacracy or other evasize tactic that resulted in no real openness or change in basic operation. It is not hard to tell it was spun off from government! :) Personally, I can not immagine why anyone outside the US would want to stay under it when there is no real reason they should have to. The ccTLDs are certianly a factor, but those are owed to every nation regardless of fees paid to ICANN. I doubt China will have .cn removed in protest of their setting up their own root! In order for a group like this to have relevence in the age of multiple primary roots, this list and the body that sponsors it should look at establishing rules and best practices that are to be advocated for as many roots as possible and not just administered through ICANN. As ICANN loses its relevence/significance by inability to compete anywhere their service is not mandated by government, all the work to get something through the ICANN labrinth will have been an unsatisfying use of time and energies looking back. Whereas if you have developed good general guiding principles that perhaps other roots would apply, you would give those roots a chance to win consumer confidence by willing applicatiuon of your practices and thus put pressure ICANN has never faced before to meet the market expectations if it wishes to remain a force in the community. One of the greatest challenges forseen in the eventuality of a more divided system of roots is the coordination of Top Level Domains (TLDs) the "inclusive" name space, the whole of the TLDs running in any and all operative roots. This was first a widely recognized problem with ICANN's theft of .biz from a profitable operation that was very actively running it, to give it to someone who would pay them hefty fees and run it in their root. They got away with it that time, in spite of untruths by Vint Cerf in his testimony before the US Congress (available in audio at www.tldainc.org) but now, as ONE OF the roots, not just THE GOVERNMENT root, they should have to consult further than just the US government about any particular string before its implementation. There must be a way to coordinate such research with a complete and updated reference of all active TLDs in any operational root. With the re-organization of the TLDA, there is a beginning for this underway. We would welcome your members here as guests to see what we are working on and toward. Perhaps the breadth of your experiences would help in making determinations and best practices of our own. There will almost certainly be an outburst from one of this list's participants within hours of my post to tell you we are not ready nor properly run; but just consider the source and decide for yourself. Come visit the site at www.tldainc.org and ask some questions. Hard questions are welcomed! Perhaps those of you with this type of perspective or interest can begin to blaze the trail for the remainder of the organization here to follow, whether ultimately with the TLDA or not. At least the conversation is started. We have a public list serve for those who wish to discuss these issues more clearly without tieing up this list too much. Just bring your findings back from time to time and share your wisdom and experience with us as you can. -Karl E. Peters k.peters at tldainc.org Quoting Rui Correia : > Dear Bill and Karl > > I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue > and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent > body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a > tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it > or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm. > > regards, > > Rui ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 7 10:13:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! Message-ID: <486941.56504.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Excellent question and demand for censorship.   What does Internet governance say to such demands?  Does it say "Yes my netiquette bans all side talk to do with developing governing models"?  I think this is a portrait of why it must not. Information super highways topple governments and prevoke riots and death -- but that has nothing to do with governance? What Ostrich thinking -- reminiscent of bookburning.   What my friends from Africa and the middle east have taught me is clear.  Our discussions and our debate over our role, tells them we give a good damn. It shows that the Internet is not just full of hot air windbags that pontithicate, but has some responsible adults that take responsibility for their actions on the net and their innactions. We incite, but with attitudes like this one we do not take responsibility to help form the new as we have helped tear down the old. --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK Subject: re: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl E. Peters" Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:23 AM What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ?  Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ? Ban this from our List ! Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 04/07/09 21:11 > De : "Karl E. Peters" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! > > > All international observers, > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it > international exposure. > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip down > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!! > > SPANISH > > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a los cristianos en particular > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza digna de gran elogio. > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal Supremo, el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente. > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido como Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009. > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada “golpe de Estado” pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una orden judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex Presidente Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, la Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente Constitucional. > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos gubernamentales, en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de unidad y el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de escribir esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el beneficio de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente. > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos comienzan a dudar de que se ha hecho lo > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la comunidad internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez Chávez cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta ahora de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del siglo 21! > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa y sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen gracia ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo gobierno se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; y oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida. > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU que escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras Iglesias, a fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de pasar juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > ENGLISH > > CITIZEN’S POSITION STATEMENT – www.enpazylibertad.org > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, cultural, > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great > praise. > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General’s office, and the > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of the > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat. > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009. > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a > “coup d’état,” because it does not comply with two fundamental > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown of > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was based > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, the > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a > new Constitutional President. > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international > community.  Quite the opposite is true.  The OAS, the UN and even the > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately led > to its citizens deposing its President. > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried.  Many will begin to > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the > terrible pressure of the International community.  Still others will be > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision.  > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the > country?  Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century! > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma > facing Honduras.  He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to him > with intense, sincere faith.  Let us pray that the new authorities in > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and for > the Honduran family to remain united. > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local Chamber > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your > State Senator, and your President. > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic organizations, > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 7 10:15:57 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC on its list Message-ID: <490531.58407.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Karl,   Why was I denied membership? --- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org wrote: From: kpeters at tldainc.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:07 PM While there is certainly room for difference of perspective, it seems to me that ICANN has met every demand for greater accountability or openness with a new layer of bureacracy or other evasize tactic that resulted in no real openness or change in basic operation. It is not hard to tell it was spun off from government! :) Personally, I can not immagine why anyone outside the US would want to stay under it when there is no real reason they should have to. The ccTLDs are certianly a factor, but those are owed to every nation regardless of fees paid to ICANN. I doubt China will have .cn removed in protest of their setting up their own root! In order for a group like this to have relevence in the age of multiple primary roots, this list and the body that sponsors it should look at establishing rules and best practices that are to be advocated for as many roots as possible and not just administered through ICANN. As ICANN loses its relevence/significance by inability to compete anywhere their service is not mandated by government, all the work to get something through the ICANN labrinth will have been an unsatisfying use of time and energies looking back. Whereas if you have developed good general guiding principles that perhaps other roots would apply, you would give those roots a chance to win consumer confidence by willing applicatiuon of your practices and thus put pressure ICANN has never faced before to meet the market expectations if it wishes to remain a force in the community. One of the greatest challenges forseen in the eventuality of a more divided system of roots is the coordination of Top Level Domains (TLDs) the "inclusive" name space, the whole of the TLDs running in any and all operative roots. This was first a widely recognized problem with ICANN's theft of .biz from a profitable operation that was very actively running it, to give it to someone who would pay them hefty fees and run it in their root. They got away with it that time, in spite of untruths by Vint Cerf in his testimony before the US Congress (available in audio at www.tldainc.org) but now, as ONE OF the roots, not just THE GOVERNMENT root, they should have to consult further than just the US government about any particular string before its implementation. There must be a way to coordinate such research with a complete and updated reference of all active TLDs in any operational root. With the re-organization of the TLDA, there is a beginning for this underway. We would welcome your members here as guests to see what we are working on and toward. Perhaps the breadth of your experiences would help in making determinations and best practices of our own. There will almost certainly be an outburst from one of this list's participants within hours of my post to tell you we are not ready nor properly run; but just consider the source and decide for yourself. Come visit the site at www.tldainc.org and ask some questions. Hard questions are welcomed! Perhaps those of you with this type of perspective or interest can begin to blaze the trail for the remainder of the organization here to follow, whether ultimately with the TLDA or not. At least the conversation is started. We have a public list serve for those who wish to discuss these issues more clearly without tieing up this list too much. Just bring your findings back from time to time and share your wisdom and experience with us as you can. -Karl E. Peters k.peters at tldainc.org Quoting Rui Correia : > Dear Bill and Karl > > I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue > and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent > body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a > tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it > or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm. > > regards, > > Rui ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kpeters at tldainc.org Tue Jul 7 10:23:23 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:23:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC on its list In-Reply-To: <490531.58407.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <490531.58407.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090707092323.t370fmfqqsg0osko@www.tldainc.org> Eric, You were not denied membership. You were misdirected in how to apply. I asked David to direct you rather to the application system on the website whereby you should be fully included in the system when your application is accepted and ID properly sent in AFTER acceptance. I know of your interest and am awaiting your application. -Karl E. Peters Quoting Eric Dierker : > Karl, >   > Why was I denied membership? > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org wrote: > > > From: kpeters at tldainc.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:07 PM > > > While there is certainly room for difference of perspective, it > seems to me that ICANN has met every demand for greater > accountability or openness with a new layer of bureacracy or other > evasize tactic that resulted in no real openness or change in basic > operation. It is not hard to tell it was spun off from government! > :) Personally, I can not immagine why anyone outside the US would > want to stay under it when there is no real reason they should have > to. The ccTLDs are certianly a factor, but those are owed to every > nation regardless of fees paid to ICANN. I doubt China will have .cn > removed in protest of their setting up their own root! > > In order for a group like this to have relevence in the age of > multiple primary roots, this list and the body that sponsors it > should look at establishing rules and best practices that are to be > advocated for as many roots as possible and not just administered > through ICANN. As ICANN loses its relevence/significance by > inability to compete anywhere their service is not mandated by > government, all the work to get something through the ICANN labrinth > will have been an unsatisfying use of time and energies looking > back. Whereas if you have developed good general guiding principles > that perhaps other roots would apply, you would give those roots a > chance to win consumer confidence by willing applicatiuon of your > practices and thus put pressure ICANN has never faced before to meet > the market expectations if it wishes to remain a force in the > community. > > One of the greatest challenges forseen in the eventuality of a more > divided system of roots is the coordination of Top Level Domains > (TLDs) the "inclusive" name space, the whole of the TLDs running in > any and all operative roots. This was first a widely recognized > problem with ICANN's theft of .biz from a profitable operation that > was very actively running it, to give it to someone who would pay > them hefty fees and run it in their root. They got away with it that > time, in spite of untruths by Vint Cerf in his testimony before the > US Congress (available in audio at www.tldainc.org) but now, as ONE > OF the roots, not just THE GOVERNMENT root, they should have to > consult further than just the US government about any particular > string before its implementation. There must be a way to coordinate > such research with a complete and updated reference of all active > TLDs in any operational root. With the re-organization of the TLDA, > there is a beginning for this > underway. We would welcome your members here as guests to see what > we are working on and toward. Perhaps the breadth of your > experiences would help in making determinations and best practices > of our own. > > There will almost certainly be an outburst from one of this list's > participants within hours of my post to tell you we are not ready > nor properly run; but just consider the source and decide for > yourself. Come visit the site at www.tldainc.org and ask some > questions. Hard questions are welcomed! > > Perhaps those of you with this type of perspective or interest can > begin to blaze the trail for the remainder of the organization here > to follow, whether ultimately with the TLDA or not. At least the > conversation is started. We have a public list serve for those who > wish to discuss these issues more clearly without tieing up this > list too much. Just bring your findings back from time to time and > share your wisdom and experience with us as you can. > > -Karl E. Peters > k.peters at tldainc.org > > Quoting Rui Correia : > >> Dear Bill and Karl >> >> I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue >> and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent >> body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a >> tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it >> or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm. >> >> regards, >> >> Rui > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 7 11:47:32 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC on its list/ICANN governance Message-ID: <723809.36706.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Thank you for the wonderful and expected response.   Legalism and sophistry.  These two demons being used by the uneducated in process to deny and exclude as opposed to include and accept.  CEOs and BoDs schtupeing* down to membership rolls in order to work political security for their club.   This is exactly why we must continue to discuss ICANN.  The most dangerous foes of the great internet society is exclusion and elitism.  The most dangerous weapons are censorship and condescension.   Hondurans, Iranians, consumers, users are all welcome here.  Or are they not?   *My adopted Grandfather Jacob Maier taught me this term of Roosevelt. It was about the great ones stumping and stooping at the same time -- too often a show. The irony was intended when reflecting on FDRs great affliction. --- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org wrote: From: kpeters at tldainc.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:23 PM Eric,      You were not denied membership. You were misdirected in how to apply. I asked David to direct you rather to the application system on the website whereby you should be fully included in the system when your application is accepted and ID properly sent in AFTER acceptance. I know of your interest and am awaiting your application. -Karl E. Peters Quoting Eric Dierker : > Karl, >   > Why was I denied membership? > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org wrote: > > > From: kpeters at tldainc.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC on its list > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:07 PM > > > While there is certainly room for difference of perspective, it  seems to me that ICANN has met every demand for greater  accountability or openness with a new layer of bureacracy or other  evasize tactic that resulted in no real openness or change in basic  operation. It is not hard to tell it was spun off from government!  :) Personally, I can not immagine why anyone outside the US would  want to stay under it when there is no real reason they should have  to. The ccTLDs are certianly a factor, but those are owed to every  nation regardless of fees paid to ICANN. I doubt China will have .cn  removed in protest of their setting up their own root! > > In order for a group like this to have relevence in the age of  multiple primary roots, this list and the body that sponsors it  should look at establishing rules and best practices that are to be  advocated for as many roots as possible and not just administered  through ICANN. As ICANN loses its relevence/significance by  inability to compete anywhere their service is not mandated by  government, all the work to get something through the ICANN labrinth  will have been an unsatisfying use of time and energies looking  back. Whereas if you have developed good general guiding principles  that perhaps other roots would apply, you would give those roots a  chance to win consumer confidence by willing applicatiuon of your  practices and thus put pressure ICANN has never faced before to meet  the market expectations if it wishes to remain a force in the  community. > > One of the greatest challenges forseen in the eventuality of a more  divided system of roots is the coordination of Top Level Domains  (TLDs) the "inclusive" name space, the whole of the TLDs running in  any and all operative roots. This was first a widely recognized  problem with ICANN's theft of .biz from a profitable operation that  was very actively running it, to give it to someone who would pay  them hefty fees and run it in their root. They got away with it that  time, in spite of untruths by Vint Cerf in his testimony before the  US Congress (available in audio at www.tldainc.org) but now, as ONE  OF the roots, not just THE GOVERNMENT root, they should have to  consult further than just the US government about any particular  string before its implementation. There must be a way to coordinate  such research with a complete and updated reference of all active  TLDs in any operational root. With the re-organization of the TLDA,  there is a beginning for this >  underway. We would welcome your members here as guests to see what  we are working on and toward. Perhaps the breadth of your  experiences would help in making determinations and best practices  of our own. > > There will almost certainly be an outburst from one of this list's  participants within hours of my post to tell you we are not ready  nor properly run; but just consider the source and decide for  yourself. Come visit the site at www.tldainc.org and ask some  questions. Hard questions are welcomed! > > Perhaps those of you with this type of perspective or interest can  begin to blaze the trail for the remainder of the organization here  to follow, whether ultimately with the TLDA or not. At least the  conversation is started. We have a public list serve for those who  wish to discuss these issues more clearly without tieing up this  list too much. Just bring your findings back from time to time and  share your wisdom and experience with us as you can. > > -Karl E. Peters > k.peters at tldainc.org > > Quoting Rui Correia : > >> Dear Bill and Karl >> >> I really think it is time that once and for all we deal with the ICANN issue >> and look at mechanisms to replace it with a representative, independent >> body. We gone around n circles for years over this matter, but like a >> tumour, we have to decide to have the courage to undergo srgery to remove it >> or fool ourselves that it will not do much harm. >> >> regards, >> >> Rui > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Tue Jul 7 12:30:31 2009 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:30:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet user? Message-ID: All, A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN is prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance. I'd like to pose the following question: "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name and/or a Web site?" Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public interest with respect to Internet development. Specific and succinct responses would be most useful to understand your point of view. I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between the level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of specificity of the charges brought against the organization with respect to its impact on Internet users. If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think so, and what question would you propose in place of it? What is your response to your proposed question? Again, specific and succinct responses would be most useful to understand your point of view. George Sadowsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Jul 7 14:05:21 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:05:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Regarding Honduras - My take of the story! In-Reply-To: <230202.24759.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <230202.24759.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40907071105w454ea19btcd49f47fcf01f09@mail.gmail.com> All orthodoxy aside, I was a little surprised myself that the obvious utility of the Internet you were promoting was not as obvious as I thought it'd be! On a personal note, I was scheduled to be in Tegucigalpa on Sunday, 28th June for a regional technical meeting pertaining to research and education networks and was informed by email - facilitated by the Internet - late in the evening on Friday, 26th July that the meeting was canceled due to the "unstable political situation". Maybe that was why I saw the connection. Carlton Samuels On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Gentlemen, > > The Question that is Honduras is appropriate for this list. In my defense, > I was trying to get to the issues of who and why the data we were getting > was "off norm". My hope was to get some substance to the obvious answer -- > the internet! > > You folks just tried to get to heartstrings instead of, or skipping over, > the internet and its role in a political transition. Just like Somalia, Iraq > and Iran and now Afganistan the Honduras are being known about through the > net. How that net is governed as a catalyst for understanding is critical to > its continued success as an eye opener.* > > But lest we forget there are factors we must keep in the forefront. > Education is marketing and marketing is education. In developing nations > progression as in revolutions the work must be done outside to inside, > inside to inside, outside to outside and finally inside to outside. The > Honduras are a case for a digital divide. Access to information is a > keystone. Those that are savy obtain the information and then relate it to > others. So now we must watch and learn how the savy use that technology -- > for themselves or for their countrymen. > > Again I ask; Why the overload of women? Why the dearth of 20 to 30? Where > is the highly sophisticated and tech savy Holy See? Just how is the Internet > access being used and controlled? > *look at the questions being asked for IGF and how they directly apply to > Iran and Honduras. > > --- On *Tue, 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org * wrote: > > > From: kpeters at tldainc.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Rui Correia" > Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:46 AM > > Thank you for your understanding! I know this was not internet > governance related, but was approached by desparate Honduran friends > to get their side of the story out to the world. I wrongly assumed > that this group of supposedly civil society folk would welcome the > voice of the missunderstood and perhaps apply this knowledge in their > civil service duties in their respective countries. Again, I was > wrong. Thanks for your understanding, however, singular as it was!!! > -Karl > > Quoting Rui Correia > >: > > > Somehow, whereas I recognise that this is not the right forum for this > > discusion, I cannot help thinking that in different circumstances > (different > > countries, different ideologies) this matter would be enjoying much more > > attention ... > > > > ........ but then again, it has always been that that way .... > > > > Best regrads, > > > > Rui > > > > > > > > > > 2009/7/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > > > > > >> > >> What, by the hell, has this pamphlet to deal with Internet govenance ? > >> > >> Are the webmaster and list moderator both sleeping or collusive ? > >> > >> Ban this from our List ! > >> > >> Jean-Louis Fullsack > >> > >> > >> > Message du 04/07/09 21:11 > >> > De : "Karl E. Peters" > >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > Copie à : > >> > Objet : [governance] Regarding Honduras - The other side of the story! > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > All international observers, > >> > Here below, please find a position paper in both Spanish and > >> > English from the Honduran people in explanation of what has transpired > >> > there. It was sent to me yesterday in hopes I could give it > >> > international exposure. > >> > Please read the statement below for a perspective missed by the > >> > mainstream media, the truth. If you do not read Spanish, just skip > down > >> > a little and read the English translation. THANK YOU!!! > >> > > >> > SPANISH > >> > > >> > > Pronunciamiento Civico a la Comunidad Internacional > >> > > Pronunciamiento cívico a la comunidad internacional en general y a > los > >> cristianos en particular > >> > > Como es sabido, al igual que la mayoría de sus vecinos > >> latinoamericanos, Honduras sufre de grave subdesarrollo en lo económico, > >> social, educativo, cultural y político. No obstante, en los últimos días > >> este pequeño y desfavorecido país ha demostrado increíble fortaleza > digna de > >> gran elogio. > >> > > En un hecho sin precedentes, el Congreso Nacional, el Tribunal > Supremo, > >> el Fiscal General, el Procurador General de la República, y la Comisión > >> Nacional de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad actuaron en defensa de la > >> Constitución de la República en contra de una amenaza real y presente. > >> > > Como resultado de su negativa a acatar las normas y reglamentos > >> establecidos en la Constitución, Manuel Zelaya fue legalmente removido > como > >> Presidente de la República de Honduras el 28 de junio de 2009. > >> > > La remoción del Presidente Manuel Zelaya no puede ser llamada "golpe > de > >> Estado" pues no cumple con dos características fundamentales de este > >> fenómeno político: La primera característica es la toma del poder por > >> > > los militares y la segunda, la ruptura del imperio de la ley. Las > >> medidas adoptadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras se basan en una > orden > >> judicial y su finalidad era restablecer el imperio de la ley, que estaba > >> siendo violado constantemente por el Ex-Presidente Zelaya. Incluso las > >> iglesias católica y evangélica en vano instaron previamente al ex > Presidente > >> Zelaya a caminar en el camino de la razón y que desistiera de sus > >> actividades ilegales. Después de la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas, > la > >> Constitución sigue en vigor y se respeta plenamente por la sucesión del > >> poder establecido por la Carta Magna, que nombró a un nuevo Presidente > >> Constitucional. > >> > > Lamentablemente, este valiente acto de los organismos > gubernamentales, > >> en defensa de la verdadera democracia y realizado en un espíritu de > unidad y > >> el patriotismo, no ha sido bien recibido por la comunidad internacional. > >> Todo lo contrario es cierto. La OEA, las Naciones Unidas e incluso los > >> Estados Unidos han presionado a esta pequeña nación hasta el punto de > >> amenazar con sanciones y con aislamiento total. Hasta el momento de > escribir > >> esto, Honduras ha sido categóricamente denunciada por ellos sin el > beneficio > >> de una investigación objetiva de los acontecimientos que finalmente > >> condujeron a sus ciudadanos a deponer a su Presidente. > >> > > Hay días difíciles por delante para los hondureños; días cuando su > >> verdadera convicción sobre la democracia estará a prueba. Muchos > comienzan a > >> dudar de que se ha hecho lo > >> > > correcto. Otros se inclinarán ante la terrible presión de la > comunidad > >> internacional. Por último, otros se verán sacudidos por algún ataque en > >> contra de la convicción moral de su decisión. Quién sabe si tal vez > Chávez > >> cumplirá su amenaza de invadir el país. ¡Pocos eran conscientes hasta > ahora > >> de cuán lejos han llegado los tentáculos del nuevo totalitarismo del > siglo > >> 21! > >> > > Dios, que quita y pone reyes, no ignora el dilema que enfrenta > >> Honduras. Él está allí, esperando que Su pueblo le clame con fe intensa > y > >> sincera. Oremos para que las nuevas autoridades de Honduras hallen > gracia > >> ante el resto de la comunidad internacional. Oremos que este nuevo > gobierno > >> se mantenga firme en su determinación de completar lo que ha comenzado; > y > >> oremos que la familia hondureña permanezca unida. > >> > > Nosotros como pueblo cristiano estamos pidiendo a la OEA y a la ONU > que > >> escuchen a nuestro Congreso, nuestra Corte Suprema de Justicia, nuestro > >> nuevo Presidente, nuestras organizaciones civiles, y a nuestras > Iglesias, a > >> fin de comprender mejor lo que está sucediendo en Honduras, antes de > pasar > >> juicio sobre los acontecimientos de este último fin de semana. > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > > >> > ENGLISH > >> > > >> > CITIZEN'S POSITION STATEMENT - www.enpazylibertad.org > >> > Like most of her Latin American neighbors, Honduras suffers from > >> > severe underdevelopment in the economic, social, educational, > cultural, > >> > and political arenas. Notwithstanding, in recent days this small and > >> > disadvantaged country has shown incredible fortitude worthy of great > >> > praise. > >> > In an unprecedented event, the National Congress, the Supreme > >> > Court, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General's office, and the > >> > National Commission on Human Rights unanimously acted in defense of > the > >> > Constitution of the Republic against a real and present threat. > >> > As a result of his refusal to abide by the rules and regulations as > >> > set forth in the Constitution, Manuel Zelaya was legally removed as > >> > President of the Republic of Honduras on June 28, 2009. > >> > The removal of President Manuel Zelaya cannot be called as a > >> > "coup d'état," because it does not comply with two fundamental > >> > characteristics of this political phenomenon: The first characteristic > >> > is the seizure of power by the military and the second the breakdown > of > >> > rule of law. The action taken by the Armed Forces of Honduras was > based > >> > on a court order and its purpose was to restore the rule of law, which > >> > was being consistently violated by the President Zelaya. Even the > >> > Catholic and Evangelical churches previously urged former President > >> > Zelaya to walk on the path of reason and to desist from his illegal > >> > activities to no avail. After the intervention of the Armed Forces, > the > >> > Constitution is still in force and is being fully respected by the > >> > succession of power established by the Magna Carta, which appointed a > >> > new Constitutional President. > >> > Unfortunately, this courageous act by governmental agencies, in > >> > defense of true democracy and done in a spirit of unity and > >> > patriotism,20has not been well received by the international > >> > community. Quite the opposite is true. The OAS, the UN and even the > >> > United States have pressured this small nation to the point of > >> > threatening sanctions and total isolation. Up to the time of this > >> > writing, Honduras has been categorically denounced by them without the > >> > benefit of an objective investigation of the events that ultimately > led > >> > to its citizens deposing its President. > >> > There are tough days ahead for Hondurans; days where their true > >> > convictions on democracy will be sorely tried. Many will begin to > >> > doubt that the right thing has been done; others will bow before the > >> > terrible pressure of the International community. Still others will > be > >> > shaken by the attack against the moral conviction of their decision. > >> > Who knows, maybe Chavez will make good on his threat to invade the > >> > country? Few were aware until now of how pervasive are the tentacles > >> > of the New Totalitarianism in the 21st century! > >> > God, who raises and casts down kings, is not unaware of the dilemma > >> > facing Honduras. He is there, waiting for His people to cry out to > him > >> > with intense, sincere faith. Let us pray that the new authorities in > >> > Honduras find grace before the rest of the world community, that they > >> > remain firm in their resolve to complete what they have started and > for > >> > the Honduran family to remain united. > >> > We are praying, but we also ask that you share this letter with as > >> > many people possible and advocate for our nation Honduras before your > >> > church congregation, your local radio and news Media, your local > Chamber > >> > of Commerce, with your State Governor, your State Representative, your > >> > State Senator, and your President. > >> > We as a people are asking that OAS and the UN listen to our > >> > Congress, our Supreme Court, our new President, our civic > organizations, > >> > and our Churches in order to better understand what is happening in > >> > Honduras before passing judgment on the events of this last weekend. > >> > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > ________________________________________________ > > > > > > Rui Correia > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > > 2 Cutten St > > Horison > > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > > South Africa > > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > > _______________ > > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kpeters at tldainc.org Tue Jul 7 14:14:11 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:14:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet Message-ID: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> First of all, ANY honest question is the right question to ask... From my perspective, the biggest problems naturally lie in the handling of top-level domains and affect first those who would run them and secondly those who would register under them. ICANN's primary interest in the decision of what TLDs to carry and who should manage them appears to be who provides the best advantage to ICANN, not who would benefit from the effective operation of a TLD. As proof of this, look a the meeting where ICANN decided against honoring Atlantic Root Network, Inc.'s .BIZ that was already profitably operational outside of ICANN and its "sale" to the group who had paid lots of ICANN fees and gone through all their financial hoops and would, of course collect fees for ICANN from every domain registration. Several thousand people with .BIZ domains in the other roots were forced to move over to the new company and forfeit their placement and hosting and so forth under the previous system, not to mention it then costing more with the new people, all on ICANN's whim. Then, on the same day, they denied one of our members .WEB after he actually pulled out of the other roots and jumped through all the hoops and paid all the fees ICANN asked. The VERY weak excuse for this second decision, at that time, was that Chris Ambler's .WEB had rivals in other roots and ICANN did not want to pick one over the other. To this day, there is no .WEB, but there has never been any payment for lost rights and revenue to Atlantic Root Network for the clear theft of .BIZ. It leaves one to wonder if the .com people who pay almost all of ICANN expenses might have been justifiably afraid of a .WEB and lobbied against it behind closed doors. I can not prove that, but neither can I see any consistant logic in taking .BIZ from one group for another, but denying .WEB to Chris on the grounds another group was claiming it, also outside of ICANN. They lost me forever that day!!! -Karl E. Peters kpeters at tldainc.org (912) 638-1638 (USA) Quoting George Sadowsky : > All, > > A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN > is prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance. > I'd like to pose the following question: > > "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average > Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name > and/or a Web site?" > > Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that > could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public > interest with respect to Internet development. Specific and succinct > responses would be most useful to understand your point of view. > > I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between > the level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of > specificity of the charges brought against the organization with > respect to its impact on Internet users. > > If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think > so, and what question would you propose in place of it? What is your > response to your proposed question? Again, specific and succinct > responses would be most useful to understand your point of view. > > George Sadowsky ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 14:36:31 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 00:06:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello George Sadowsky The right question at the right time. The question is also so postively raised. Yes, it is strange that there is so much of misunderstanding about ICANN and its role. And indeed the charges raised are non-specific. ICANN does have a very important function in the management of critical internet resources, but often mistaken to be the central and sometimes the sole Internet Governance orgnaization and with this wrong perception, sometimes ICANN is blamed for everything that is wrong with Internet. This could be one reason why a section of the Internet users are quick to blame ICANN. The other possible reason why we find ICANN excessively criticized is possibly due to an unseen political design. I hope that this question also brings up a debate on the political dimension of such charges. Where does such an anti-icann campaign originate from? What are the interests that would like to see a weaker ICANN? Could there be a possible agenda and an intent behind these adverse opinions? Could it be possible that even some of the benevolent participants of the IG process are unwittingly drawn into anti-icann sentiments by the unseen design? (suppliamentary questions, not questions in place of your question) Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:00 PM, George Sadowsky < george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote: > All, > > A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN is > prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance. I'd like > to pose the following question: > > "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average > Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name and/or > a Web site?" > > > Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that > could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public > interest with respect to Internet development. Specific and succinct > responses would be most useful to understand your point of view. > > I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between the > level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of specificity > of the charges brought against the organization with respect to its impact > on Internet users. > > If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think so, > and what question would you propose in place of it? What is your response > to your proposed question? Again, specific and succinct responses would be > most useful to understand your point of view. > > George Sadowsky > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 15:02:26 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:32:26 -0430 Subject: [governance] Mailing list guidelines Message-ID: <4A539BC2.1050207@gmail.com> Hello everyone, This is not an "official" post; although I am a co-coordinator of the IGC, the mailing list moderators are "Avri, cpsr2006, Ian Peter, Parminder Jeet, Vittorio Bertola" (from http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance). I could not find any guidelines for our list at either http://www.igcaucus.org/ or http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance, so, of course, I did an Internet search :o) I found several specific guidelines that I would like to share: 3.2. "Remember there are a lot of subscribers on many of our lists. Many of them get a lot of mail and are unhappy when they get a lot of email that doesn't have any relevance to their work on the list. ***Consider whether you really need to share your email with every one of them before you post."*** (http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines) [Emphasis Ginger's] 3.7. "All users are encouraged to send private reminders to contributors who contravene Netiquette rules. It is only if the breaches are persistent that a moderator should be called on to intervene." (http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines) --"Do not make debates personal. Avoid "you" and "yours"." (http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html) --"When possible, avoid gender specific address, such as "Gentlemen"". (anonymous) In case you are interested, I found examples of guidelines at: http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines#netiquette http://www.conscoop.ottawa.on.ca/gpc/gpc_email_list_code_of_conduct_and_moderator_guidelines.html http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html A short "Guide to professional conduct" from http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html * Do not make debates personal. Avoid "you" and "yours". * Try to be clear and concise. * Do not imply fault. Misunderstandings occur frequently; work to resolve them without apportioning blame. * Accept that having a different opinion does not make anyone "wrong". * Do not present opinions as fact. * Give some attention to accepted standards of spelling, grammar and punctuation. * Do not be dismissive. * Say that you agree (when you do) even if only partially. * Consider whether what you have said could be misinterpreted. * Try not to "fight to win". The purpose of the debate is to exchange ideas, not to score points or demonstrate inadequacies. Regards, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at psg.com Tue Jul 7 15:08:26 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:08:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Mailing list guidelines In-Reply-To: <4A539BC2.1050207@gmail.com> References: <4A539BC2.1050207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <21378041-CD7C-4C12-BF02-198589A1707F@psg.com> hi, The charter does contain some indication of list behavior. Specifically: Mailing lists will be run according to netiquette guidelines. One guideline reference for IGC netiquette is RFC1855. One useful guideline for all list participants is: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive. You should not send heated message("flames") even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames.. Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in suspension or removal from the IGC list according to the following process: The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will include only posting rights. If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended for one (1) month. Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem will result in another public warning. If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. On 7 Jul 2009, at 15:02, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This is not an "official" post; although I am a co-coordinator of > the IGC, the mailing list moderators are "Avri, cpsr2006, Ian Peter, > Parminder Jeet, Vittorio Bertola" (from http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance) > . > > I could not find any guidelines for our list at either http://www.igcaucus.org/ > or http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance, so, of course, I > did an Internet search :o) > > I found several specific guidelines that I would like to share: > > 3.2. "Remember there are a lot of subscribers on many of our lists. > Many of them get a lot of mail and are unhappy when they get a lot > of email that doesn't have any relevance to their work on the list. > ***Consider whether you really need to share your email with every > one of them before you post."*** (http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines > ) [Emphasis Ginger's] > > 3.7. "All users are encouraged to send private reminders to > contributors who contravene Netiquette rules. It is only if the > breaches are persistent that a moderator should be called on to > intervene." (http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines) > > --"Do not make debates personal. Avoid "you" and "yours"." (http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html > ) > > --"When possible, avoid gender specific address, such as > "Gentlemen"". (anonymous) > > In case you are interested, I found examples of guidelines at: > > http://www.indymedia.ie/ListGuidelines#netiquette > > http://www.conscoop.ottawa.on.ca/gpc/gpc_email_list_code_of_conduct_and_moderator_guidelines.html > > http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html > > A short "Guide to professional conduct" from http://sigchi.org/web/guidelines.html > > * Do not make debates personal. Avoid "you" and "yours". > * Try to be clear and concise. > * Do not imply fault. Misunderstandings occur frequently; work to > resolve them without apportioning blame. > * Accept that having a different opinion does not make anyone > "wrong". > * Do not present opinions as fact. > * Give some attention to accepted standards of spelling, grammar and > punctuation. > * Do not be dismissive. > * Say that you agree (when you do) even if only partially. > * Consider whether what you have said could be misinterpreted. > * Try not to "fight to win". The purpose of the debate is to > exchange ideas, not to score points or demonstrate inadequacies. > > Regards, > Ginger > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Jul 7 15:17:43 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:17:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61a136f40907071217u6e963c2ch10f23d439ed33a06@mail.gmail.com> George: A well-placed question, indeed. My view: While ICANN is not the only game with respect to Internet governance, the fact that it coordinates issues pertaining to Names and Numbers gives it pride of place in the general consciousness. The reason is quite prosaic: most Internet users will interact with the platform by invoking either names or numbers. So any negative thing that can be remotely attached to a "name and numbers thing" is automatically at ICANN's door. Furthermore, you cannot underestimate how the existing operational framework of ICANN provides a lightning rod for views suspicious - or even impatient - of the general political agenda that undergirds the unipolar political world. JPA is seen as a creature of United States control of what has become public goods. That remains an area of unease and attracts contending political posturings. I take a slightly different - and more complex - view to the political situation. It begins with the fact that ICANN is an American corporation. Therefore, it comes saddled with the socialization and cultural sensitivities of an American corporate entity. This is not a reflexively bad thing. But it is decidedly a challenge that must be faced, acknowledged and mediated. Carlton Samuels On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM, George Sadowsky< george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote: > All, > A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN is > prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance. I'd like > to pose the following question: > > "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average > Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name and/or > a Web site?" > > Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that > could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public > interest with respect to Internet development. Specific and succinct > responses would be most useful to understand your point of view. > I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between the > level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of specificity > of the charges brought against the organization with respect to its impact > on Internet users. > If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think so, > and what question would you propose in place of it? What is your response > to your proposed question? Again, specific and succinct responses would be > most useful to understand your point of view. > George Sadowsky > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jul 7 16:01:16 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:01:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi George, The answer to your question is clearly not much at all. However, a more interesting question is ³how could ICANN advantage and assist the average Internet user ³? Here are a few starters ICANN could use its compulsory Internet taxes to assist in providing equitable and affordable access for disadvantaged groups and regions rather than having an inwardly focussed spending pattern ICANN could extend its mandate to assist in dealing with security and technical issues which affect users I¹m sure there are many more! On 8/07/09 2:30 AM, "George Sadowsky" wrote: > All, > > A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN is > prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance. I'd like > to pose the following question: > >> "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average >> Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name and/or >> a Web site?" > > Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that could > be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public interest with > respect to Internet development. Specific and succinct responses would be most > useful to understand your point of view. > > I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between the level > of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of specificity of the > charges brought against the organization with respect to its impact on > Internet users. > > If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think so, > and what question would you propose in place of it? What is your response to > your proposed question? Again, specific and succinct responses would be most > useful to understand your point of view. > > George Sadowsky > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jul 7 16:49:27 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 21:49:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 06:01:16 on Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Ian Peter writes >ICANN could use its compulsory Internet taxes to assist in providing >equitable and affordable access for disadvantaged groups and regions >rather than having an inwardly focussed spending pattern Would you raise the taxes to support that? $30M a year [ie half their budget] doesn't go very far if there's a billion people to share it between. My 3c worth. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 7 17:46:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet Message-ID: <966389.64801.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No this is entirely a negative and wrong question.   The question that one asks of governance is not "how does it hurt?".   The question is and shall always be "how does it help?"   And the fact that most dotcommoners do not have a place to call home on the net is proof of failure.       "How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name and/or a Web site?"   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Tue Jul 7 17:59:56 2009 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:59:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> Message-ID: Karl, I think I understand what you are saying - that in the past individual registrants who signed up with TLDs that had not been explicitly approved by ICANN lost registration rights and had to re-register with an ICANN-approved TLD to obtain a domain name. That appears to be historically correct. However, apart from these incidents, can you identify any current harm that ICANN is doing to individual Internet users? You might argue that continued restrictive expansion of the name space is harming users, but I think that this is more like not allowing drivers to obtain the vanity license plates that they want for their cars - it does not stop them from obtaining their license plates with another background or tag number, and they can they drive anywhere that anyone else can drive. Do you agree with this, or can you identify specific current harm that ICANN is doing to the individual Internet user? Some current Internet users are, of course, registrants, but more are not and just user the Internet. George At 1:14 PM -0500 7/7/09, kpeters at tldainc.org wrote: > First of all, ANY honest question is the right question to ask... > From my perspective, the biggest problems naturally lie in the >handling of top-level domains and affect first those who would run >them and secondly those who would register under them. > ICANN's primary interest in the decision of what TLDs to carry >and who should manage them appears to be who provides the best >advantage to ICANN, not who would benefit from the effective >operation of a TLD. As proof of this, look a the meeting where ICANN >decided against honoring Atlantic Root Network, Inc.'s .BIZ that was >already profitably operational outside of ICANN and its "sale" to >the group who had paid lots of ICANN fees and gone through all their >financial hoops and would, of course collect fees for ICANN from >every domain registration. Several thousand people with .BIZ domains >in the other roots were forced to move over to the new company and >forfeit their placement and hosting and so forth under the previous >system, not to mention it then costing more with the new people, all >on ICANN's whim. > Then, on the same day, they denied one of our members .WEB >after he actually pulled out of the other roots and jumped through >all the hoops and paid all the fees ICANN asked. The VERY weak >excuse for this second decision, at that time, was that Chris >Ambler's .WEB had rivals in other roots and ICANN did not want to >pick one over the other. To this day, there is no .WEB, but there >has never been any payment for lost rights and revenue to Atlantic >Root Network for the clear theft of .BIZ. It leaves one to wonder if >the .com people who pay almost all of ICANN expenses might have been >justifiably afraid of a .WEB and lobbied against it behind closed >doors. I can not prove that, but neither can I see any consistant >logic in taking .BIZ from one group for another, but denying .WEB to >Chris on the grounds another group was claiming it, also outside of >ICANN. > They lost me forever that day!!! >-Karl E. Peters >kpeters at tldainc.org >(912) 638-1638 (USA) > >Quoting George Sadowsky : > >>All, >> >>A considerable number of posts on this list seem to indicate that ICANN >>is prominent in many peoples' concerns regarding Internet governance. >>I'd like to pose the following question: >> >>"How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the average >>Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a domain name >>and/or a Web site?" >> >>Responses to this question would help to identify possible changes that >>could be made to improve ICANN's responsibility to act in the public >>interest with respect to Internet development. Specific and succinct >>responses would be most useful to understand your point of view. >> >>I ask this question because I am mystified by the dissonance between >>the level of negative comment with respect to ICANN and the lack of >>specificity of the charges brought against the organization with >>respect to its impact on Internet users. >> >>If you believe that this is the wrong question to ask, why do you think >>so, and what question would you propose in place of it? What is your >>response to your proposed question? Again, specific and succinct >>responses would be most useful to understand your point of view. >> >>George Sadowsky > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >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 From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Tue Jul 7 18:11:15 2009 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:11:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <966389.64801.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <966389.64801.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eric, I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm not sure that I fully understand your answer. So if your substitute question is "How does ICANN help the average Internet user?" -- my first (but not the only) response would be that it runs a hierarchical naming system that permits users, if they wish, to obtain a name from a moderately restricted set of categories, and the system includes registries that permit these names to be dynamically resolved to IP addresses that are necessary to ensure that traffic flows to where it should. It also works to prevent the fraudulent use or hijacking of names at several levels. I suspect that you will agree with the above description, and that your concern is rather that it should do more to help individual Internet users. What more, very specifically, should it do? And in particular, what more should it do for the vast majority of Internet users who don't have a domain name themselves but just use the DNS to access Internet-based resources and communications? George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 2:46 PM -0700 7/7/09, Eric Dierker wrote: >No this is entirely a negative and wrong question. > >The question that one asks of governance is not "how does it hurt?". > >The question is and shall always be "how does it help?" > >And the fact that most dotcommoners do not have a place to call home >on the net is proof of failure. > > > > > >"How do ICANN's actions (or inactions) disadvantage or hurt the >average Internet user, who may have, but probably doesn't have, a >domain name and/or a Web site?" > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jul 7 18:13:10 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:13:10 +1000 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Roland, Yes I would happily pay more than 25 cents per annum per domain for a good cause - but not for the current ICANN and its expenditure patterns. On 8/07/09 6:49 AM, "Roland Perry" wrote: > In message , at 06:01:16 on Wed, 8 > Jul 2009, Ian Peter writes >> ICANN could use its compulsory Internet taxes to assist in providing >> equitable and affordable access for disadvantaged groups and regions >> rather than having an inwardly focussed spending pattern > > Would you raise the taxes to support that? $30M a year [ie half their > budget] doesn't go very far if there's a billion people to share it > between. > > My 3c worth. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From karl at cavebear.com Tue Jul 7 22:13:54 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:13:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> Message-ID: <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> On 07/07/2009 02:59 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: (Different Karl here)... > I think I understand what you are saying - that in the past individual > registrants who signed up with TLDs that had not been explicitly > approved by ICANN lost registration rights and had to re-register with > an ICANN-approved TLD to obtain a domain name. That appears to be > historically correct. There are people who do have names in TLDs that are not found in ICANN's list. These include the original .biz, IOD's .web and my .ewe. (My wife has the name "beautiful.ewe", I, of course, have "wassamatta.ewe".) The fact that ICANN doesn't have these in its inventory does not have any effect on the fact and reality that those relationships have substance and reality in the stream of interstate commerce. For example, I have and use cavebear.web in IOD's .web. We have a contractual relationship. I can resolve those names even if many others can not. If one says that "it isn't real" or "that it is a toy" I'd suggest that those same arguments once could have been applied to those things called "email" and "the world wide web". I remember back in 1972 when I handed out my ARPAnet email address and many people said "what's that?" > However, apart from these incidents, can you identify any current harm > that ICANN is doing to individual Internet users? Well to start there is the amount of several hundred million $(US) that is being taken every year from internet users in the form of arbitrary and groundless registry fees that ICANN grants to TLD registries. ICANN has not a clue what the actual costs of providing registry services are and seems to show no interest in finding out and much less interest in ever conforming those mandated fees to actual costs plus a reasonable TLD monopoly profit. Even J.D. Rockefeller couldn't have worked out a sweeter deal. Then there is the fact that ICANN has adopted privacy-busting policies that bend over to give solace to the trademark protection industry. There are also many internet innovators who, albeit relatively few in number, who want to try out new ideas. ICANN, acting like a trade-protective guild, has locked those people out of the marketplace and that, in turn, denies the internet community the opportunity to partake of new ideas. Some ideas may be good, some may be silly, some may be duds: For example, I have my .ewe TLD. It is highly protective of privacy and has several other innovations - see http://www.eweregistry.com/ Although it is 100% lawful it violates ICANN's protectionist policies and it would be a waste of time and money for me to even apply to ICANN. In the longer term I see enormous harm arising from ICANN's protectionism. That harm would be the fragmentation of the DNS name space. There are already many forces that create pressure to fragment the net in various ways: First is the change in perception by users (a perception that is strongly encouraged by the large commercial providers such as Comcast and AT&T) that the net is not an end-to-end carrier of packets but, rather, is access to services such as web browsing, email, and skype. That change in perception makes it easy, and often desirable to a provider, to slip in application layer gateways for those few applications but with immeasurable ancillary damage arising from the death of the end-to-end principle. Second is the IPv4 address issue. IPv6 isn't taking off, and even if it does, because it is not an evolutionary protocol but really a new protocol, any IPv6 user who wants to experience the full richness of the net is still going to have to have an IPv4 address as well thus nullifying the pressure on the V4 address space. The address pressure will drive people to install super-NATs and application layer gateways. Third there is national pride and cultural groups that want to build their own view of the net. One can't argue with the drive that makes parents want a better way to protect children from porn. And one way for that drive to be satisfied is one that has been historically proven - separation, whether it the Mormons moving to Utah in 1846 or other groups. They may, like China, find it useful to wall themselves in (or us out). DNS is a useful tool when one wants to do that. I think we are heading for a lumpy internet, one that more resembles our mobile phone networks here in the US - we can all call one another but other services don't work so well across provider boundaries. ICANN's incumbent and TM industry protective policies are lubricating and fueling the engines that will create this lumpy internet. There is one final way in which ICANN is harming internet users - ICANN projects the glamor (i.e. the false impression) that it actually is doing things to assure that DNS query packets are reliably, quickly, and accurately turned into DNS reply packets. Users depend on that every second of every minute of internet use. Yet ICANN does not provide any protections. If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says "fix it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job". That somebody is going to be very surprised, and very unhappy, as will all those internet users who thought that it that was precisely ICANN's job. ICANN does try to protect the name registration systems. But that is really of interest to internet users when on those relatively rare occasions they want to acquire a name or update name server records. ICANN has never imposed real operational standards on name server operators - the standards that are there are rather light weight - and there is nothing about recovery should bad things happen. We have been fortunate that root server operators and TLD operators for the most part have run first class quality operations. But there is nothing by ICANN that requires or even induces this halcyon state to continue into the future. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jul 8 05:26:20 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:26:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Obama on Civil Society References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87192C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here is a nice statement President Obama made in a meeting with Russian Civil Society Groups during his recent meeting in Moscow: Obama: "Make no mistake: Civil society -- civil groups hold their governments to high standards. And I know -- because this audience includes Americans who've been critical of me for not moving fast enough on issues that are of great importance. They've said it to my face. In the Oval Office. While I was President. (Laughter.) They told me I was wrong. And in some cases they changed my mind; in some cases they didn't. And that's okay, because we're not going to agree on everything -- but I know this: Their voices and their views and their criticism ultimately will make my decisions better, they will make me ask tougher questions and ask my staff tougher questions. And we'll find out: Are there ways of doing what we need to do that conform to our deepest held values and our ideals, and that are sustainable over the long term? That makes our country stronger in the long term, and I wouldn't want it any other way." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/REMARKS-BY-THE-PRESIDENT-AT-PARALLEL-CIVIL-SOCIETY-SUMMIT/ ____________________________________________________________ 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 From asif at kabani.co.uk Wed Jul 8 05:29:24 2009 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:29:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] Obama on Civil Society In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87192C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87192C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8017791e0907080229jbdc66cy45b85fa7ffe81cf7@mail.gmail.com> Wolfgang, Thank you for your sharing the article, appreciate your efforts, Yes, we agree this is a very nice statement from President Obama. with best regards Sincerley Asif Kabani 2009/7/8 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > Here is a nice statement President Obama made in a meeting with Russian > Civil Society Groups during his recent meeting in Moscow: > > Obama: "Make no mistake: Civil society -- civil groups hold their > governments to high standards. And I know -- because this audience includes > Americans who've been critical of me for not moving fast enough on issues > that are of great importance. They've said it to my face. In the Oval > Office. While I was President. (Laughter.) They told me I was wrong. And in > some cases they changed my mind; in some cases they didn't. And that's okay, > because we're not going to agree on everything -- but I know this: Their > voices and their views and their criticism ultimately will make my decisions > better, they will make me ask tougher questions and ask my staff tougher > questions. And we'll find out: Are there ways of doing what we need to do > that conform to our deepest held values and our ideals, and that are > sustainable over the long term? That makes our country stronger in the long > term, and I wouldn't want it any other way." > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/REMARKS-BY-THE-PRESIDENT-AT-PARALLEL-CIVIL-SOCIETY-SUMMIT/ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Visit: http://www.isd-rc.org http://www.kabani.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 8 05:53:39 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:53:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 08:13:10 on Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Ian Peter writes >I would happily pay more than 25 cents per annum per domain Why only domain registrants paying; what about anyone with 2MB or higher broadband access? Couldn't they all afford a few dollars a year packet-tax too. >for a good cause So what would be your preferred "good causes"? >- but not for the current ICANN and its expenditure patterns. The expenditure is relatively small in the great scheme of things, can't we look forward rather than backwards? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 8 06:10:19 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:10:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message <4A5400E2.2080402 at cavebear.com>, at 19:13:54 on Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Karl Auerbach writes >If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in >actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says "fix >it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job". So what failed, to cause that DNS outage? If it was every ISP's connectivity to every DNS root server (or to most tld servers), that does indeed sound like something outside ICANN's ability to fix. I'd be interested to know the exact issue, as some tld operators claim 100% historical availability of their DNS servers. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jul 8 06:28:38 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:28:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments Message-ID: Email from Markus Kummer about the IGF review, he asked the email be forwarded to all potential contributors. Comments from all would be very welcome. Apologies for any duplication. Adam At 10:16 AM +0200 7/8/09, Markus KUMMER wrote: > >Dear colleagues, > >You may recall that we set 15 July as a deadline >for submitting comments with regard to the IGF >Review process. All comments received within >that deadline will be reflected in a synthesis >paper that will be translated into all six UN >languages as an official input into the >³consultation with Forum participants² at the >Sharm El Sheikh meeting. The call for >contributions is posted on our Web site. We have >also sent a letter to all Missions in Geneva, >asking for comments. Comments can be sent by >electronic means, but also by fax or by normal >mail. > >I would also like to encourage all MAG members >to send us comments on behalf of their >respective institutions, if they have not >already done so, and please encourage others to >submit contributions. The more comments we >receive, the more valuable our paper will be! > >While we cannot guarantee that the synthesis >paper will reflect comments received after the >15 July deadline, we will do our utmost to do >so. In any case, all papers received after that >deadline will be posted on our Web site. > >Best regards >Markus > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From karl at cavebear.com Wed Jul 8 07:02:45 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:02:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> On 07/08/2009 03:10 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4A5400E2.2080402 at cavebear.com>, at 19:13:54 on Tue, 7 Jul > 2009, Karl Auerbach writes >> If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in >> actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says >> "fix it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job". > > So what failed, to cause that DNS outage? I prefixed my sentence with "If". So far DNS outages have been relatively minor or local. But then again, from a worldwide point of view, the loss of electrical power to the Northeast portion of the US was a local matter. Systemic flaws tend to creep into our systems and bite us by surprise - for example, it was the centralized congestion of Google Adwords and Google's "urchin" for web analysis, that tended to drag down intenet web performance when Michael Jackson died. There is no particular reason to believe that DNS, particularly DNS with DNSSEC, does not contain similar points that could be tickled by accident (or on purpose). For example, the fact that most root and many TLD servers have their own names in the .net TLD suggests that there may exist a possibility of some crossover failures should .net have problems. By-the-way, one very under-discussed matter is the degree to which DNSSEC might proved to be an obstacle to recovery should DNS ever wobble off axis. > If it was every ISP's connectivity to every DNS root server (or to most > tld servers), that does indeed sound like something outside ICANN's > ability to fix. There are several things that ICANN can do. Many are already being done by root server operators, but nothing requires them to continue to do so. Take a look at the latter part of this: http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html In it you will see a list of things that ICANN could contractually require. In addition, many human or natural failures are regional - Katrina affected only a small region - but for the people in that region they perceive major outages. ICANN could, but has not, engaged in any effort to make it easier for people inside those regions to rebuild services locally rather than sitting on their hands waiting for rescuers to carve their way in. (I know the feeling and frustrating of waiting for the outsiders to work their way in - here in Santa Cruz the wrath of the gods has hit us with fire, flood, earthquake, and some fruitcake who thought that blowing up power transmission lines in celebration of earth-day [and every day of the following two weeks] was fun.) I've proposed to ICANN the creation of a bootable DVD (think KNOPPIX+DNS) that contains enough of a DNS system (root and TLD contents) that can be shoved into an available PC to get a typical community started with at least a bootstrap level of network services. But it got deep sixed. > I'd be interested to know the exact issue, as some tld operators claim > 100% historical availability of their DNS servers. I can believe that claim. But then again, as they say on securities prospectuses - past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future performance. I remember one day when I brought down an entire company's network because of a single packet I originated on a supposedly isolated test network (we were doing one of the fabled TCP/IP bakeoffs) that got propagated and took out every router in the company. Never happened before. That was the same day that I saw a network adaptor with no software driver answer ARP's - turned out that the device was wedged and was re-sending its last packet. After than I began to understand the full import of Mr. Murphy and his law (.i.e. If anything can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible time.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 8 07:35:21 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:35:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message <4A547CD5.6060105 at cavebear.com>, at 04:02:45 on Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Karl Auerbach writes >On 07/08/2009 03:10 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4A5400E2.2080402 at cavebear.com>, at 19:13:54 on Tue, 7 Jul >> 2009, Karl Auerbach writes >>> If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in >>> actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says >>> "fix it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job". >> >> So what failed, to cause that DNS outage? > >I prefixed my sentence with "If". But you followed it with "as they did in actuality over the US Northeast". Do you mean the electricity (literally the lights) went out? >So far DNS outages have been relatively minor or local. But then >again, from a worldwide point of view, the loss of electrical power to >the Northeast portion of the US was a local matter. Of course, a tiny proportion of the world's DNS relies entirely upon the Northest US. >For example, the fact that most root and many TLD servers have their >own names in the .net TLD suggests that there may exist a possibility >of some crossover failures should .net have problems. But the DNS resolvers will typically cache the results for a fortnight. Which will give people some time to work around whatever the problem was. >> If it was every ISP's connectivity to every DNS root server (or to most >> tld servers), that does indeed sound like something outside ICANN's >> ability to fix. > >There are several things that ICANN can do. Many are already being >done by root server operators, but nothing requires them to continue to >do so. Take a look at the latter part of this: >http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html In it you will see >a list of things that ICANN could contractually require. So you'd like ICANN to have a role in centralising the funding and control of the currently independent distributed root servers? >ICANN could, but has not, engaged in any effort to make it easier for >people inside those regions to rebuild services locally So they should have a role as "firefighters" moving in to re-establish connectivity where the current arrangements are too slow? >I've proposed to ICANN the creation of a bootable DVD (think >KNOPPIX+DNS) that contains enough of a DNS system (root and TLD >contents) that can be shoved into an available PC to get a typical >community started with at least a bootstrap level of network services. Anyone could do that. Have you approached other than ICANN with this idea? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From karl at cavebear.com Wed Jul 8 08:00:04 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:00:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> On 07/08/2009 04:35 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > Do you mean the electricity (literally the lights) went out? More than once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003 > Of course, a tiny proportion of the world's DNS relies entirely upon the > Northest US. When the 9-11 catastrophe occurred much of Africa and South America fell off the net. On the net geographic proximity is often quite different from net proximity. >> For example, the fact that most root and many TLD servers have their >> own names in the .net TLD suggests that there may exist a possibility >> of some crossover failures should .net have problems. > > But the DNS resolvers will typically cache the results for a fortnight. > Which will give people some time to work around whatever the problem was. Caching is its own source of risks - if bad data does get in, sometimes you have to wait a cache timeout (about 48 hours for most TLD data) else you have to engage in manual intervention. Bad data isn't always immediately detected. For example, I've had bad tertiary MX records that went unnoticed until my primary and secondary mail exchanger were down at the same time - an event that happened years after the bad data was lodged into the system. And suppose that an ill .net server decided to issue update notifications to induce the pulling of bad data despite a cache and uncompleted TTL? Every point in which something touches something else is a kind of marionette string that can be pulled. Often it does nothing. But in the hands of Mr. Murphy or another actor things sometimes go terribly wrong. From preliminary reports the pilots of AF flight 447 learned what happens when systems that can't fail do fail. >> There are several things that ICANN can do. Many are already being >> done by root server operators, but nothing requires them to continue >> to do so. Take a look at the latter part of this: >> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html In it you will see >> a list of things that ICANN could contractually require. > > So you'd like ICANN to have a role in centralising the funding and > control of the currently independent distributed root servers? That was and is part of ICANN's explicit mandate. ICANN's original goal was to assure that DNS query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS response packets. Unless ICANN oversees and regulates root server operations we are flying only on the good will of the root server operators. (A good group, but they are mortal - and in some cases, such as the root servers operated by the US military, their higher allegiance is not to the community of internet users.) > So they should have a role as "firefighters" moving in to re-establish > connectivity where the current arrangements are too slow? Not in real time, but they could A) facilitate the creation of recovery facilities and B) not stomp on those who try to create recovery facilities. >> I've proposed to ICANN the creation of a bootable DVD (think >> KNOPPIX+DNS) that contains enough of a DNS system (root and TLD >> contents) that can be shoved into an available PC to get a typical >> community started with at least a bootstrap level of network services. > > Anyone could do that. Have you approached other than ICANN with this idea? Yes, several times. Don't forget I was on the ICANN board of directors, and even with that close degree of access, the idea never got a decent hearing. It's not necessarily something that "anyone" could do. To build a usable subset of DNS it would be useful to have query densities so as to know what to prune - a DVD isn't enough to hold all of DNS. Some TLD operators would consider that kind of data to be rather proprietary. ICANN has more leverage to pry out that data than a mere mortal. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 09:20:38 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:50:38 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> Hi everyone, There has been no comment on Bill Drake's re-posting of the IGF Secretariat's questions, which I have posted at the bottom of this email for your reference. In the case that the IGC has something to be included in the synthesis paper, we would need to have a consensus statement by July 15th. In our last attempt (June) at a consensus statement, the two biggest problems seemed to be that a) some people feel the proposed statement is too critical and/or not supportive enough of the IGF Secretariat's work. I have re-read the proposed statements and find them to be supportive, but including suggestions, as the Secretariat requests. Please take a look and comment again. b) some people feel the statement is not substantive enough. I ask that anyone who would like to add to the statement please post proposed text. Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth Graham's previous suggestions: The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multi-stakeholder principle. [We feel however, that at least from the perspective of civil society. this principle has not been fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.] [This bracketed text opposed by Jeanette Hoffman] The IGC is particularly concerned about two essential issues: 1. The lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion. [Ginger: I think this is two points in one and should be separated] Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. 2. The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance, particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance. [Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition of Internet governance to something more open. Rather than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society, “in their respective roles,” if roles and identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The development and application by anyone of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet."] [This bracketed text opposed by Bill Drake][Ginger: I would completely eliminate number 2, or make it much more specific] Adam Peake wrote: > Email from Markus Kummer about the IGF review, he asked the email be > forwarded to all potential contributors. Comments from all would be > very welcome. > > Apologies for any duplication. > > Adam > > > > > At 10:16 AM +0200 7/8/09, Markus KUMMER wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> You may recall that we set 15 July as a deadline for submitting >> comments with regard to the IGF Review process. All comments received >> within that deadline will be reflected in a synthesis paper that will >> be translated into all six UN languages as an official input into the >> ³consultation with Forum participants² at the Sharm El Sheikh >> meeting. The call for contributions is posted on our Web site. We >> have also sent a letter to all Missions in Geneva, asking for >> comments. Comments can be sent by electronic means, but also by fax >> or by normal mail. >> >> I would also like to encourage all MAG members to send us comments on >> behalf of their respective institutions, if they have not already >> done so, and please encourage others to submit contributions. The >> more comments we receive, the more valuable our paper will be! >> >> While we cannot guarantee that the synthesis paper will reflect >> comments received after the 15 July deadline, we will do our utmost >> to do so. In any case, all papers received after that deadline will >> be posted on our Web site. >> >> Best regards >> Markus >> > ____ The questions we are asked to address are: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? 7. Do you have any other comments? > ________________________________________________________ > 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 From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Wed Jul 8 09:29:10 2009 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:29:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, You've written a thoughtful piece here. I have some mixed reactions to your comments. OIn addition, since you wrote, Roland has started a more technical discussion with you regarding some of the points you raise, and I would prefer not to mix my response in with that discussion. I'll provide a short response here, and since we know each other personally, I'll look forward to welcoming you at my house the next time you visit your property in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, I'll respond as best I can to what you have written. At 7:13 PM -0700 7/7/09, Karl Auerbach wrote: >On 07/07/2009 02:59 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > >(Different Karl here)... > >>I think I understand what you are saying - that in the past individual >>registrants who signed up with TLDs that had not been explicitly >>approved by ICANN lost registration rights and had to re-register with >>an ICANN-approved TLD to obtain a domain name. That appears to be >>historically correct. > >There are people who do have names in TLDs that are not found in >ICANN's list. These include the original .biz, IOD's .web and my >.ewe. (My wife has the name "beautiful.ewe", I, of course, have >"wassamatta.ewe".) That's creative. :-) > >The fact that ICANN doesn't have these in its inventory does not >have any effect on the fact and reality that those relationships >have substance and reality in the stream of interstate commerce. > >For example, I have and use cavebear.web in IOD's .web. We have a >contractual relationship. I can resolve those names even if many >others can not. If one says that "it isn't real" or "that it is a >toy" I'd suggest that those same arguments once could have been >applied to those things called "email" and "the world wide web". I >remember back in 1972 when I handed out my ARPAnet email address and >many people said "what's that?" I understand the difference in philosophy here regarding what should go into the root and how easily it should go in -- and who should say whether and when it goes in. However, given ICANN's current de facto authority over the root, I think that creating new TLDs outside that framework and providing such addresses to others DOES disadvantage ordinary users by giving them generally non-resolvable addresses. And it's the average user that I'm focusing upon here. > >>However, apart from these incidents, can you identify any current harm >>that ICANN is doing to individual Internet users? > >Well to start there is the amount of several hundred million $(US) >that is being taken every year from internet users in the form of >arbitrary and groundless registry fees that ICANN grants to TLD >registries. ICANN has not a clue what the actual costs of providing >registry services are and seems to show no interest in finding out >and much less interest in ever conforming those mandated fees to >actual costs plus a reasonable TLD monopoly profit. Even J.D. >Rockefeller couldn't have worked out a sweeter deal. I'm not sure that this is still true, but if so, I agree that ICAN should have better information. On the other hand, it's difficult to get excited about a $6-$10 per year charge, especially since the average user doesn't need one to benefit from the Internet, and those users sho need one can presumably afford it (since the cost of computers and netwrk connectivity are orders of magnitude larger. > >Then there is the fact that ICANN has adopted privacy-busting >policies that bend over to give solace to the trademark protection >industry. I have some concerns regarding the role that the IPR community plays. I also have concerns about the current interplay between IDN TLDs and the IPR community's concerns. In fat, one could argue that if ICAN were to hold up IDN TLDs in favor of the IPR community's concerns, then this would clearly be harmful to those users -- and there are a LOT of them -- who are unable to use the latin character set. > >There are also many internet innovators who, albeit relatively few >in number, who want to try out new ideas. ICANN, acting like a >trade-protective guild, has locked those people out of the >marketplace and that, in turn, denies the internet community the >opportunity to partake of new ideas. > >Some ideas may be good, some may be silly, some may be duds: > >For example, I have my .ewe TLD. It is highly protective of privacy >and has several other innovations - see http://www.eweregistry.com/ >Although it is 100% lawful it violates ICANN's protectionist >policies and it would be a waste of time and money for me to even >apply to ICANN. > >In the longer term I see enormous harm arising from ICANN's >protectionism. That harm would be the fragmentation of the DNS name >space. Yes, if others decide to abandon ICAN's model and go around it. That's in effect what you're doing with .ewe, isn't it? Karl, that does not help the average user. > >There are already many forces that create pressure to fragment the >net in various ways: > >First is the change in perception by users (a perception that is >strongly encouraged by the large commercial providers such as >Comcast and AT&T) that the net is not an end-to-end carrier of >packets but, rather, is access to services such as web browsing, >email, and skype. That change in perception makes it easy, and often >desirable to a provider, to slip in application layer gateways for >those few applications but with immeasurable ancillary damage >arising from the death of the end-to-end principle. It's not clear what ICANN's role is here. > >Second is the IPv4 address issue. IPv6 isn't taking off, and even >if it does, because it is not an evolutionary protocol but really a >new protocol, any IPv6 user who wants to experience the full >richness of the net is still going to have to have an IPv4 address >as well thus nullifying the pressure on the V4 address space. The >address pressure will drive people to install super-NATs and >application layer gateways. Perhaps so; again ICANN is supplying the addresses through the RIRs and is doing what it can in the way of education. Would you argue that any of this is harmful? > >Third there is national pride and cultural groups that want to build >their own view of the net. One can't argue with the drive that >makes parents want a better way to protect children from porn. And >one way for that drive to be satisfied is one that has been >historically proven - separation, whether it the Mormons moving to >Utah in 1846 or other groups. They may, like China, find it useful >to wall themselves in (or us out). DNS is a useful tool when one >wants to do that. > >I think we are heading for a lumpy internet, one that more resembles >our mobile phone networks here in the US - we can all call one >another but other services don't work so well across provider >boundaries. > >ICANN's incumbent and TM industry protective policies are >lubricating and fueling the engines that will create this lumpy >internet. > >There is one final way in which ICANN is harming internet users - >ICANN projects the glamor (i.e. the false impression) that it >actually is doing things to assure that DNS query packets are >reliably, quickly, and accurately turned into DNS reply packets. > >Users depend on that every second of every minute of internet use. >Yet ICANN does not provide any protections. > >If the lights were to go out on a big part of DNS, as they did in >actuality over the US Northeast, and somebody calls ICANN and says >"fix it", ICANN's answer will be "not our job". That somebody is >going to be very surprised, and very unhappy, as will all those >internet users who thought that it that was precisely ICANN's job. > >ICANN does try to protect the name registration systems. But that >is really of interest to internet users when on those relatively >rare occasions they want to acquire a name or update name server >records. > >ICANN has never imposed real operational standards on name server >operators - the standards that are there are rather light weight - >and there is nothing about recovery should bad things happen. We >have been fortunate that root server operators and TLD operators for >the most part have run first class quality operations. But there is >nothing by ICANN that requires or even induces this halcyon state to >continue into the future. The relationship with the root server operators has been essentially cooperative and voluntary, as is the relationship with the IETF. This system of voluntary distributed administration of the Internet has brought us to where we are now, for better or for worse. More centralized and tightly coupled systems have existed in the past -- remember SNA?? -- but anything like that would not have spread as quickly or as innovatively as what we have now. Internet administration is an evolutionary process, and I recognize that a number of your suggestions are designed to help it in the next stage of its evolution. There is certainly room to discuss models of Internet administration, and that is what the IGF is trying to do. My own assessment is that the IGF operates very much on the political level, with some disregard for technical realities, whereas the I* community (ICANN, ISOC, IAB, IETF, IESG, RIRs, etc.) proceeds to evolve more on a base of operational and technical reality. Finally, I hope we continue this conversation in person. My focus is likely to be primarily on the average user. I want the domain name system to help that user navigate the Internet and obtain the information resource and communications capabilities that he/she needs. I view ICANN as one of the organizations that is involved in providing that assistance, and I think that it should abide by the Hipocratic oath, "Do no harm." After that, let's see how we can evolve it -- as well as the whole administrative structure of which it is a part -- to "do better." > > --karl-- Regards, George ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 8 09:29:05 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:29:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message <4A548A44.8040108 at cavebear.com>, at 05:00:04 on Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Karl Auerbach writes >When the 9-11 catastrophe occurred much of Africa and South America >fell off the net. (Although some not until a fortnight later). My impression at the time was that this was due to those countries having non-redundant cctld DNS served from New York, rather than them no longer being able see the root servers and other gtld servers from their country. Elsewhere you have advocated for a wider range of tlds in the root (eg dot-ewe) but are you also advocating that all tlds must first pass a test of global resilience and redundancy? Surely different operators will have different ideas about this, and differentiating between them is part of the process of deciding where to buy your names. Meanwhile, I hope that lessons have been learnt about the DNS for cctlds. >Caching is its own source of risks - if bad data does get in, sometimes >you have to wait a cache timeout (about 48 hours for most TLD data) >else you have to engage in manual intervention. I would guess that avoiding bad data would be a priority (just like avoiding getting water in your brake fluid is). Brakes are still a good idea! >Bad data isn't always immediately detected. If all of an ISP's customers could no longer see .com (because of bad data in their DNS resolver), they'd probably hear about it fairly quickly. And I don't expect tlds like .com to allow bad data into their records in the first place. >From preliminary reports the pilots of AF flight 447 learned what >happens when systems that can't fail do fail. Almost every major airline accident is a result of two (or more likely three) unlikely things happening at the same time. Happily, if your DNS sever crashes, you can reboot it. >>> There are several things that ICANN can do. Many are already being >>> done by root server operators, but nothing requires them to continue >>> to do so. Take a look at the latter part of this: >>> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html In it you will see >>> a list of things that ICANN could contractually require. >> >> So you'd like ICANN to have a role in centralising the funding and >> control of the currently independent distributed root servers? > >That was and is part of ICANN's explicit mandate. The root server project you imply, was explicitly in their mandate? Or just the kind of thing you personally would have expected a more generally worded mandate to include? (A genuine question). >Don't forget I was on the ICANN board of directors, Sorry, I didn't know that to start with. At that time in my life people warned me against getting involved with ICANN. >It's not necessarily something that "anyone" could do. To build a >usable subset of DNS it would be useful to have query densities so as >to know what to prune - a DVD isn't enough to hold all of DNS. Some >TLD operators would consider that kind of data to be rather >proprietary. ICANN has more leverage to pry out that data than a mere >mortal. There seem to be plenty of sites that claim to list the "top 100 websites" or whatever. Were you wanting to include every domain's DNS data, or just the zone files from each tld? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Jul 8 09:56:56 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:56:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement? In-Reply-To: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> References: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth > Graham's previous suggestions: My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed significant concerns about that text and you then withdrew it, so it's not obvious why we'd put it back on the table as a starting point. In any event it was not formulated as responses to the secretariat's specific questions, so one could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses by other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and development of the synthesis paper. Why not just do it the way they're asking us to? Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an ugly but workable option would be to start a separate thread for each of the questions below, let any caucus members who are so inclined respond to taste, then aggregate the responses by Sunday and then we can try to boil them down into a few coherent paragraphs per Monday- Wednesday? There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this might stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt anyone's got the time to draft a complete text covering all points, but people might pick and choose the bits of particular interest to them. And the result would be more reflective of the various views here and more responsive to the points the secretariat needs to address. Just a thought, Bill PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no longer forwarded. > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it > in the Tunis Agenda? > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/ > government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out > for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory > Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what > improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, > functioning and processes? > 7. Do you have any other comments? ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jul 8 10:02:44 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:02:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement? In-Reply-To: References: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu> Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start with all questions at the same time. Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text could be used for question 6? jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi Ginger > > On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth >> Graham's previous suggestions: > > My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed significant > concerns about that text and you then withdrew it, so it's not obvious > why we'd put it back on the table as a starting point. In any event it > was not formulated as responses to the secretariat's specific questions, > so one could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses by > other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and development of the > synthesis paper. Why not just do it the way they're asking us to? > > Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an ugly but > workable option would be to start a separate thread for each of the > questions below, let any caucus members who are so inclined respond to > taste, then aggregate the responses by Sunday and then we can try to > boil them down into a few coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday? > > There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this might > stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt anyone's got the > time to draft a complete text covering all points, but people might pick > and choose the bits of particular interest to them. And the result > would be more reflective of the various views here and more responsive > to the points the secretariat needs to address. > > Just a thought, > > Bill > > PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no longer > forwarded. >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? >> Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> 7. Do you have any other comments? > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 10:42:38 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:12:38 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Message-ID: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start discussion on that question. "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?" Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 11:48:48 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:18:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement? In-Reply-To: <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu> References: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hello, 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be relevant: (from the meeting transcript) IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the idea of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with this or in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not comfort them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions are taken by government, by businesses in complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not reflect the mood of the IGF. So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and report on the mood of IGF. Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start with all > questions at the same time. Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text > could be used for question 6? > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: > > >> Hi Ginger >> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >>> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth >>> Graham's previous suggestions: >>> >>> >> My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed significant >> concerns about that text and you then withdrew it, so it's not obvious why >> we'd put it back on the table as a starting point. In any event it was not >> formulated as responses to the secretariat's specific questions, so one >> could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses by other >> stakeholders for comparison and contrast and development of the synthesis >> paper. Why not just do it the way they're asking us to? >> >> Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an ugly but >> workable option would be to start a separate thread for each of the >> questions below, let any caucus members who are so inclined respond to >> taste, then aggregate the responses by Sunday and then we can try to boil >> them down into a few coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday? >> >> There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this might >> stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt anyone's got the >> time to draft a complete text covering all points, but people might pick and >> choose the bits of particular interest to them. And the result would be >> more reflective of the various views here and more responsive to the points >> the secretariat needs to address. >> >> Just a thought, >> >> Bill >> >> PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no longer >> forwarded. >> >> >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the >>> Tunis Agenda? >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >>> acted as a catalyst for change? >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), >>> Secretariat and open consultations? >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>> processes? >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From vanda at uol.com.br Wed Jul 8 11:57:29 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:57:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> Dear all As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is to define (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin America) regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion, have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/ communities. I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the importance of internet for all stakeholders, but it needs to help the implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage IGF regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF Best to all, Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Ginger Paque' Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start discussion on that question. "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?" Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 12:55:58 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:25:58 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> Message-ID: <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to Question 6, stating your point? Vanda Scartezini wrote: > Dear all > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is to define > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin America) > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion, > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/ > communities. > I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but it needs to help the > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage IGF > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF > Best to all, > Vanda Scartezini > POLO Consultores Associados > & IT Trend > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Ginger > Paque' > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start > discussion on that question. > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes?" > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, > but not limited to, remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad > based economic and social development. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 12:57:48 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:27:48 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - Question 3 (impact) In-Reply-To: References: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A54D00C.80706@gmail.com> Shiva, great that you are addressing this question. Could you please synthesize your thoughts into a proposed text to answer Question 3? Thanks. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello, > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? > Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > > IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of > Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity > involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory > pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an > opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process > of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of > consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. > > As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making > process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at > the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting > may be relevant: > > > (from the meeting transcript) > > IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. > But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. > These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days > deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which > session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder > could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become > some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document > for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer > to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the > idea > of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with > this or > in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not > comfort > them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an > idea of what is happening in the real world. > > Right now the decisions are taken by government, by businesses in > complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not > reflect > the mood of the IGF. > > So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF > Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and > report on > the mood of IGF. Thank you. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start > with all questions at the same time. > Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text could be used for > question 6? > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: > > > Hi Ginger > > On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's > and Garth Graham's previous suggestions: > > > My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed > significant concerns about that text and you then withdrew it, > so it's not obvious why we'd put it back on the table as a > starting point. In any event it was not formulated as > responses to the secretariat's specific questions, so one > could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses > by other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and > development of the synthesis paper. Why not just do it the > way they're asking us to? > > Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an > ugly but workable option would be to start a separate thread > for each of the questions below, let any caucus members who > are so inclined respond to taste, then aggregate the responses > by Sunday and then we can try to boil them down into a few > coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday? > > There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this > might stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt > anyone's got the time to draft a complete text covering all > points, but people might pick and choose the bits of > particular interest to them. And the result would be more > reflective of the various views here and more responsive to > the points the secretariat needs to address. > > Just a thought, > > Bill > > PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no > longer forwarded. > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set > out for it in the Tunis Agenda? > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or > indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder > group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst > for change? > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks > set out for it, including the functioning of the > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and > open consultations? > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial > five-year mandate, and why/why not? > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what > improvements would you suggest in terms of its working > methods, functioning and processes? > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 12:59:50 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 22:29:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger, Great idea. Splitting the task into points to be attended to by various participants. Makes it easy. Would work. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to > Question 6, stating your point? > > > Vanda Scartezini wrote: > >> Dear all As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal >> is to define >> (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin America) >> regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get >> specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion, >> have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/ >> communities. >> I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the >> importance of internet for all stakeholders, but it needs to help the >> implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since >> implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage >> IGF >> regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF >> Best to all, Vanda Scartezini >> POLO Consultores Associados >> & IT Trend >> Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 >> 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. >> Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 >> Mob + 5511 8181.1464 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, >> 2009 11:43 AM >> To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Ginger >> Paque' >> Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start >> >> Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can submit >> answers to some questions without necessarily including all of them, I ask >> that anyone who is interested open a thread and start discussion on that >> question. >> >> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes?" >> >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review >> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. >> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process >> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of >> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >> remote participation. >> >> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with >> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the >> poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to >> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, >> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of >> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those >> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a >> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 13:02:08 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 22:32:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - Question 3 (impact) In-Reply-To: <4A54D00C.80706@gmail.com> References: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> <4A54A704.2030205@wzb.eu> <4A54D00C.80706@gmail.com> Message-ID: After a day? I am right now going through a program with the Diplo foundation where my course instructor has assigned me two essay questions to be answered by noon tomorrow ! If I don't do that I will be ranked useless. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva, great that you are addressing this question. Could you please > synthesize your thoughts into a proposed text to answer Question 3? Thanks. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello, >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >> acted as a catalyst for change? >> IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of >> Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity >> involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase as >> also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to >> experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are >> becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' >> equality is largely an IGF achievement. >> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process >> has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A point >> that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be relevant: >> (from the meeting transcript) >> IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to >> recommend. >> But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. >> These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days >> deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which >> session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder >> could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become >> some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document >> for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer >> to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the >> idea >> of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with >> this or >> in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not >> comfort >> them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an >> idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the >> decisions are taken by government, by businesses in >> complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not >> reflect >> the mood of the IGF. >> So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF >> Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and >> report on >> the mood of IGF. Thank you. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >> wrote: >> >> Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start >> with all questions at the same time. >> Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text could be used for >> question 6? >> jeanette >> William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger >> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's >> and Garth Graham's previous suggestions: >> >> My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed >> significant concerns about that text and you then withdrew it, >> so it's not obvious why we'd put it back on the table as a >> starting point. In any event it was not formulated as >> responses to the secretariat's specific questions, so one >> could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses >> by other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and >> development of the synthesis paper. Why not just do it the >> way they're asking us to? >> Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, >> an >> ugly but workable option would be to start a separate thread >> for each of the questions below, let any caucus members who >> are so inclined respond to taste, then aggregate the responses >> by Sunday and then we can try to boil them down into a few >> coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday? >> There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this >> might stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt >> anyone's got the time to draft a complete text covering all >> points, but people might pick and choose the bits of >> particular interest to them. And the result would be more >> reflective of the various views here and more responsive to >> the points the secretariat needs to address. >> Just a thought, >> Bill >> PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is >> no >> longer forwarded. >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set >> out for it in the Tunis Agenda? >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or >> indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder >> group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst >> for change? >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks >> set out for it, including the functioning of the >> Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and >> open consultations? >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial >> five-year mandate, and why/why not? >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what >> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working >> methods, functioning and processes? >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anriette at apc.org Wed Jul 8 16:04:14 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:04:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC looking for a global ICT policy advocacy coordinator Message-ID: <1247083454.5003.55.camel@anriette-laptop> Hello all Apologies for using this list for a job posting - especially after Bill Drake's recent admonition :) APC is looking for someone to coordinate global ICT policy networking and advocacy. Initially this is a one-year contract to work on a specific funded project, but there is a potential for it to be renewed based on performance and availability of funds. See the attached call for applications. Best Anriette -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_global_policy_advocacy_ coordinator_06072009.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45627 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karl at cavebear.com Wed Jul 8 16:51:06 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:51:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> On 07/08/2009 06:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4A548A44.8040108 at cavebear.com>, at 05:00:04 on Wed, 8 Jul > 2009, Karl Auerbach writes > >> When the 9-11 catastrophe occurred much of Africa and South America >> fell off the net. > > (Although some not until a fortnight later). You should read the NANOG reports on what happened. It was not DNS related. It was more a matter that at that time Africa and S. America were net-topologically dependencies of a few buildings in NYC. When the power went out, or emergency generators ran dry, or air filters got so clogged that machines just died, then the NYC end of the data links went down (or the switches/routers went down) and Africa and S. America felt the brunt. The point of this is that on the net seemingly distant events can have nearby effects for good or ill. > Elsewhere you have advocated for a wider range of tlds in the root (eg > dot-ewe) but are you also advocating that all tlds must first pass a > test of global resilience and redundancy? If you read more deeply I say that that is a choice for the operator of the root zone that accepts a given TLD. If a sloppy root system wants to accept TLDs with weak procedures, then, assuming users can know about this, then that would be OK. But for root zone operator such ICANN which promotes high quality TLD products, their standards ought to be rather higher. (Note I'm distinguishing "root zone operator" from "root server operator". ICANN operates a root zone. There are other root zones, albeit they have a history of being rather weakly run.) > I would guess that avoiding bad data would be a priority (just like > avoiding getting water in your brake fluid is). Brakes are still a good > idea! You bet! Just yesterday afternoon I had the "lovely" experience of flying sideways at 120+kph down the highway with the antilock brakes and stability control mechanisms in full play - >> Bad data isn't always immediately detected. > > If all of an ISP's customers could no longer see .com (because of bad > data in their DNS resolver), they'd probably hear about it fairly quickly. Perhaps. Suppose the net becomes further cross-coupled with other infrastructures. How might a VoIP phone establish a call to an ISP to report the problem when the SIP phone number is under .com? Or what if the directory that lists the ISP's phone number is under .com? I've watched so-called network repair people. Often they don't really know what they are doing and couldn't analyze a DNS issue from a connectivity issue. (Apropos the degree of diagnostic clue in some network diagnostic people: My father and grandfather repaired TV sets back in the days when they could be repaired rather than discarded. It was easy to tell which TV repairman were competent from those who were dummies. The competent people had a small mirror that they could prop-up so that they could see the screen while they worked at the back of the TV. The dummies ran back and forth from front to back to front to back ...) > And I don't expect tlds like .com to allow bad data into their records > in the first place. That's what SUN thought when their entire software repository was wiped out because of "can't happen" error happened to un-checksumed UDP (gee, isn't the Ethernet CRC adequate?) as they flowed over the bus between the NIC card and memory and thence to the disk. I've recently observed some issues in which large TCP based data transfers were being corrupted because at high flow rates certain error checking did not occur deep down at the device driver level. Errors do creep into data. >> That was and is part of ICANN's explicit mandate. [To assure technical stability.] > > The root server project you imply, was explicitly in their mandate? Or > just the kind of thing you personally would have expected a more > generally worded mandate to include? (A genuine question). ICANN is a trade guild that runs a particular marketplace around its root zone file. Other root zone file operators would run a marketplace around their root zone files. Those other operators ought, in my opinion, to be able to establish their own rules based on what they feel customers want to buy. Most of us feel that reliable DNS is worth buying. That's because we view domain names as some sort of rock of eternal use. But for some short lived purposes reliability might not be worth paying for. If one only needs a domain name to be stable for a few minutes or days then there might be large cost savings possible if a provider can avoid building things like data escrow and backups. The point is that ICANN is imposed a very top-down view of what the internet should be onto the DNS. It is a very unimaginative view and ICANN is very xenophobic about new ideas. Had ICANN's mentality held sway in 1972 it is likely that the internet would never have been born. >> It's not necessarily something that "anyone" could do. To build a >> usable subset of DNS it would be useful to have query densities so as >> to know what to prune - a DVD isn't enough to hold all of DNS. Some >> TLD operators would consider that kind of data to be rather >> proprietary. ICANN has more leverage to pry out that data than a mere >> mortal. > > There seem to be plenty of sites that claim to list the "top 100 > websites" or whatever. Were you wanting to include every domain's DNS > data, or just the zone files from each tld? Website data is easier to obtain than DNS data. Websites are often filled with web bugs ranging from one-bit-pixels as used by www.whitehouse.gov (in utter violation of their published privacy policy) to things like Google's "urchin". (And there is also website tracking via Adobe Flash cookies.) So website data can be bought. DNS query data may be for sale, but its not quite as open a marketplace. (Although I'd bet money that my (US) government is paying or coercing companies such as Verisign to let the government monitor domain name query activity for "national security" purposes." And I don't doubt that the root servers operated by the US government and US military establishment are being data mined.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jul 9 00:34:40 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:34:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what > improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, > functioning and processes?" > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near- > unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review > of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to > foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country > voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who > are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those > concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance > structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to > alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to > specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working > as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a > primary resource in support of broad based economic and social > development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 03:12:14 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:42:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello Coordinators, As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes?" >> >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review >> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. >> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process >> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of >> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >> remote participation. >> >> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with >> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the >> poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to >> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, >> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of >> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those >> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a >> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. >> > > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, > in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For > example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the > Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face > meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a > leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the > IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between > meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face > meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures > and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible > outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various > such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated > debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from > going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder > representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - > the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it > does not prove its value to the international community by adopting > mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public > policy issues. > > -- > JEREMY MALCOLM > Project Coordinator > CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE > for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM > 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg > TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Mob: +60 12 282 5895 > Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 > www.consumersinternational.org > > Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning > voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we > are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and > empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit > www.consumersinternational.org. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 06:56:04 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:26:04 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 - additions Shiva and Jeremy In-Reply-To: References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4A55CCC4.80206@gmail.com> Thanks Shiva and Jeremy. Jeremy's text and Shiva's idea are added to the new version below for your consideration. I think we should remember that the Secretariat is asking for new ideas that can change the IGF for the better, so this should not be interpreted as criticism, but as a suggestion towards the way forward. Shiva, thanks for your work on this. A gentle request: these discussions are directed to the whole IGC, so it would be more appropriate to greet everyone at the beginning of your email. After you finish your exam, could you please go ahead and prepare a proposed draft on this point (6) as well? Since we need to submit by Wednesday, that allows us to get ahead on the final wording while discussion is still going on. On Shiva's point: I like the idea of a fund for participation. Two things that might considered: a) Should funding be focused on need and inclusion rather than speakers who might be able to pay their own way? b) the terms are quite clear and demanding. Adding some flexibility, or being less specific about business class flights and top hotels might make this proposal more acceptable. We should all be commenting on concept and ideas, while wording is going on in parallel. Please opine, everyone: this is a solid opportunity for participation. This is where our collective voice can be heard/read. If your primary organization has already submitted a statement, are there points from it you would like the IGC to consider including as well, to reinforce its strength? "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?" Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. [Text to be re-written by Shiva] suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Coordinators, > > As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of > getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( > as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have > implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may > have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 > lead participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may > have to cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and > business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel > rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with > incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers > invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well > treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ > 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well > funded NGOs and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a > fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the > IGF from Experts who are not the ususal IGF participatns. It would > also help those participants who have a keen intrerest in contributing > to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what > improvements would you suggest in terms of its working > methods, functioning and processes?" > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe > that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more > inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not > needed in a review of the current process could be spent in > the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely > heard and developing country voices through, but not limited > to, remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those > who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or > migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open > access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as > ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists > in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support > of broad based economic and social development. > > > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations > of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or > inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional > intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most > inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet > Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face > meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should > take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and > engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional > fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a > capstone for the work done elsewhere. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to > produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned > deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been > considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and > roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from > going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some > stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all > - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will > suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the > international community by adopting mechanisms for the production > of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > -- > JEREMY MALCOLM > Project Coordinator > CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE > for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM > 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg > TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Mob: +60 12 282 5895 > Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 > www.consumersinternational.org > > Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global > campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member > organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful > international consumer movement to help protect and empower > consumers everywhere. For more information, visit > www.consumersinternational.org > . > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jul 9 07:04:39 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:04:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4A55CEC7.9090106@wzb.eu> Hi, the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries. The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we phrase such matters. jeanette Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Coordinators, > > As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of > getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( > as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have > implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have > to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead > participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to > cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business > class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 > days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals > considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be > high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would > require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as unconditonal > support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and International > Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring > in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the ususal > IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have a keen > intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to > the IGF. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what > improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, > functioning and processes?" > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that > the review should focus on addressing the issue of more > inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not > needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the > search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard > and developing country voices through, but not limited to, > remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those > who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, > those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access > governance structures built on an electronic platform, those > looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, > and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing > the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based > economic and social development. > > > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable > in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental > summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate > for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as > an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, > perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet > governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most > work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and > regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more > of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce > more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. > In the past various such innovations have been considered - > including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable > discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through > with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder > representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never > is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the > long term it it does not prove its value to the international > community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding > statements on Internet public policy issues. > > -- > JEREMY MALCOLM > Project Coordinator > CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE > for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM > 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg > TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Mob: +60 12 282 5895 > Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 > www.consumersinternational.org > > Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global > campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more > information, visit www.consumersinternational.org > . > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 07:22:46 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:52:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 - additions Shiva and Jeremy In-Reply-To: <4A55CCC4.80206@gmail.com> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> <4A55CCC4.80206@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger and All, Will rewrite the text building in the flexibility, including suggestion of grants for participants, will do that by Monday as also contribute to the overall statment under point 6 (apart from working on point 4) Shiva. On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Shiva and Jeremy. > > Jeremy's text and Shiva's idea are added to the new version below for your > consideration. I think we should remember that the Secretariat is asking for > new ideas that can change the IGF for the better, so this should not be > interpreted as criticism, but as a suggestion towards the way forward. > > Shiva, thanks for your work on this. A gentle request: these discussions > are directed to the whole IGC, so it would be more appropriate to greet > everyone at the beginning of your email. After you finish your exam, could > you please go ahead and prepare a proposed draft on this point (6) as well? > Since we need to submit by Wednesday, that allows us to get ahead on the > final wording while discussion is still going on. > > On Shiva's point: I like the idea of a fund for participation. Two things > that might considered: a) Should funding be focused on need and inclusion > rather than speakers who might be able to pay their own way? b) the terms > are quite clear and demanding. Adding some flexibility, or being less > specific about business class flights and top hotels might make this > proposal more acceptable. > > We should all be commenting on concept and ideas, while wording is going on > in parallel. Please opine, everyone: this is a solid opportunity for > participation. This is where our collective voice can be heard/read. If your > primary organization has already submitted a statement, are there points > from it you would like the IGC to consider including as well, to reinforce > its strength? > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes?" > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review > should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. > More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process > could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of > rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, > remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with > disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the > poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to > peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those > working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a > primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, > in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, > it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet > Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in > a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the > book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, > in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and > regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a > capstone for the work done elsewhere. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures > and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible > outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various > such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated > debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from > going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder > representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - > the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it > does not prove its value to the international community by adopting > mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public > policy issues. > > [Text to be re-written by Shiva] > suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend > unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business > Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin > with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about > 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have > to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business > class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in > one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact > that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals > who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find > between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, > Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the > UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to > the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also > help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels > but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello Coordinators, >> >> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of >> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as >> opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied >> conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a >> fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel >> speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class >> airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in >> excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two >> recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the >> panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to >> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ >> 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs >> and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable >> the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are >> not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who >> have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in >> traveling to the IGF. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote: >> >> On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what >> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working >> methods, functioning and processes?" >> >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe >> that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more >> inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not >> needed in a review of the current process could be spent in >> the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely >> heard and developing country voices through, but not limited >> to, remote participation. >> >> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, >> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those >> who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or >> migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open >> access governance structures built on an electronic platform, >> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as >> ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and >> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists >> in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support >> of broad based economic and social development. >> >> >> >> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations >> of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or >> inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional >> intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most >> inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet >> Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face >> meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should >> take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance >> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and >> engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional >> fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a >> capstone for the work done elsewhere. >> >> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to >> produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned >> deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been >> considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and >> roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from >> going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some >> stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all >> - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will >> suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the >> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production >> of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >> >> -- JEREMY MALCOLM >> Project Coordinator >> CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE >> for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM >> 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg >> TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> Mob: +60 12 282 5895 >> Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 >> www.consumersinternational.org >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global >> campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member >> organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful >> international consumer movement to help protect and empower >> consumers everywhere. For more information, visit >> www.consumersinternational.org >> . >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 07:23:20 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:53:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 - additions Shiva and Jeremy In-Reply-To: References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> <4A55CCC4.80206@gmail.com> Message-ID: sorry, (apart from point 3) On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Ginger and All, > > > Will rewrite the text building in the flexibility, including suggestion of > grants for participants, will do that by Monday as also contribute to the > overall statment under point 6 (apart from working on point 4) > > Shiva. > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Thanks Shiva and Jeremy. >> >> Jeremy's text and Shiva's idea are added to the new version below for your >> consideration. I think we should remember that the Secretariat is asking for >> new ideas that can change the IGF for the better, so this should not be >> interpreted as criticism, but as a suggestion towards the way forward. >> >> Shiva, thanks for your work on this. A gentle request: these discussions >> are directed to the whole IGC, so it would be more appropriate to greet >> everyone at the beginning of your email. After you finish your exam, could >> you please go ahead and prepare a proposed draft on this point (6) as well? >> Since we need to submit by Wednesday, that allows us to get ahead on the >> final wording while discussion is still going on. >> >> On Shiva's point: I like the idea of a fund for participation. Two things >> that might considered: a) Should funding be focused on need and inclusion >> rather than speakers who might be able to pay their own way? b) the terms >> are quite clear and demanding. Adding some flexibility, or being less >> specific about business class flights and top hotels might make this >> proposal more acceptable. >> >> We should all be commenting on concept and ideas, while wording is going >> on in parallel. Please opine, everyone: this is a solid opportunity for >> participation. This is where our collective voice can be heard/read. If your >> primary organization has already submitted a statement, are there points >> from it you would like the IGC to consider including as well, to reinforce >> its strength? >> >> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes?" >> >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review >> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. >> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process >> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of >> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >> remote participation. >> >> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with >> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the >> poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to >> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, >> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of >> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those >> working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a >> primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. >> >> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of >> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, >> in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, >> it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet >> Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in >> a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the >> book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, >> in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and >> regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a >> capstone for the work done elsewhere. >> >> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures >> and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible >> outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various >> such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated >> debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from >> going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder >> representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - >> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it >> does not prove its value to the international community by adopting >> mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public >> policy issues. >> >> [Text to be re-written by Shiva] >> suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend >> unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business >> Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin >> with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about >> 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have >> to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business >> class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in >> one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact >> that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals >> who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find >> between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, >> Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the >> UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to >> the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also >> help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels >> but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. >> >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >>> Hello Coordinators, >>> >>> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of >>> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as >>> opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied >>> conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a >>> fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel >>> speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class >>> airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in >>> excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two >>> recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the >>> panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to >>> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ >>> 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs >>> and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable >>> the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are >>> not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who >>> have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in >>> traveling to the IGF. >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>> >>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote: >>> >>> On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what >>> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working >>> methods, functioning and processes?" >>> >>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe >>> that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more >>> inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not >>> needed in a review of the current process could be spent in >>> the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely >>> heard and developing country voices through, but not limited >>> to, remote participation. >>> >>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, >>> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those >>> who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or >>> migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open >>> access governance structures built on an electronic platform, >>> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as >>> ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and >>> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists >>> in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support >>> of broad based economic and social development. >>> >>> >>> >>> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations >>> of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or >>> inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional >>> intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most >>> inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet >>> Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face >>> meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should >>> take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance >>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and >>> engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional >>> fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a >>> capstone for the work done elsewhere. >>> >>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to >>> produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned >>> deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been >>> considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and >>> roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from >>> going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some >>> stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all >>> - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will >>> suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the >>> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production >>> of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >>> >>> -- JEREMY MALCOLM >>> Project Coordinator >>> CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE >>> for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM >>> 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg >>> TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> Mob: +60 12 282 5895 >>> Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 >>> www.consumersinternational.org >> > >>> >>> Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global >>> campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member >>> organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful >>> international consumer movement to help protect and empower >>> consumers everywhere. For more information, visit >>> www.consumersinternational.org >>> . >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 9 08:48:13 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 05:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Message-ID: <179127.68538.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> How about you do the funding part by: Suggesting a person whos job it is to raise funds.   Darnedest thing but there is a reason the above model works for 99% of all NGOs.     (funding for developing nations is a bust.  Participants who would be energized to participate here would be in the top five to ten percentile of their respective nations' income and education bracket   ----    Those folks 99% of the time "need" a lot less funding than a non-tenured professor from Hong Kong) --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: From: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start To: "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 11:04 AM Hi, the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries. The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we phrase such matters. jeanette Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Coordinators, > > As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >     On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >         "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what >         improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, >         functioning and processes?" > >         Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >         near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that >         the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more >         inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not >         needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the >         search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard >         and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >         remote participation. > >         And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, >         people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those >         who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, >         those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access >         governance structures built on an electronic platform, those >         looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of >         responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, >         and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing >         the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based >         economic and social development. > > > >     This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of >     structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable >     in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental >     summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate >     for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as >     an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, >     perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet >     governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most >     work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and >     regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more >     of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. > >     Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >     structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce >     more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. >      In the past various such innovations have been considered - >     including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable >     discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through >     with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder >     representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never >     is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the >     long term it it does not prove its value to the international >     community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding >     statements on Internet public policy issues. > >     --     JEREMY MALCOLM >     Project Coordinator >     CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE >     for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    >     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM >     7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg >     TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >     Mob: +60 12 282 5895 >     Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 >     www.consumersinternational.org > >     Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global >     campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations >     in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer >     movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more >     information, visit www.consumersinternational.org >     . > > >     ____________________________________________________________ >     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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 9 09:22:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 06:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Message-ID: <870228.26198.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:   Bravo! (However I must caution: When building a structure, the foundation must be solid, built with the strongest materials that will hold up walls, doors and layers(floors) that are to be built on top. But it is seldom useful to begin to invite guests in for tea, prior to finishing the structure.)   Of course the whole neighborhood and travellers will be welcome and guest rooms and plenty of seats at the table will be fashioned accordingly. But I would suggest moving slower with outreach than with building. > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?" > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. --JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 13:04:03 2009 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:04:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with the points in Ginger's post that started this thread, and appreciate this beginning. I'd emphasize live remote participation, and archiving for later access. I agree that a Secretariat should be adequately funded. I have concerns about funding beyond that. The more central are scholarships and funding, the more centralization, and I think the less level the field. I do realize one could make the same argument of a non-level field about individuals and groups and countries that can manage their own funding, but in my experience central funding skews a gathering. I'd rather lean towards 1) hosting meetings with 360 days notice so that those of us with airline miles can try for awards and those who need to be included in annual travel budgets for their groups can apply, 2) hosting meetings at sites where there is airline competition and routing choices so that airfares are lower, and 3) hosting meetings at locations that are less costly (in the US, there are retreat and conference centers that are less urban). I've found Geneva, Tunis, Athens, Rio sites remote, convenient accommodations expensive, inexpensive food hard to find. I've paid for these trips myself and I'm not sure how many others self-pay - perhaps this isn't representative. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 13:25:38 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:55:38 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A562812.5090502@gmail.com> Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments. Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it. Sylvia, I like your points. Would you please post a possible addition to the text to reflect your new suggestions about timing and location, while others opine? We can leave it to Shiva to re-phrase funding to reflect the group's (including Sylvia's) comments on that section. "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?" Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. [Text to be re-written by Shiva] suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. Sylvia Caras wrote: > I agree with the points in Ginger's post that started this thread, and > appreciate this beginning. > > I'd emphasize live remote participation, and archiving for later access. > > I agree that a Secretariat should be adequately funded. > > I have concerns about funding beyond that. The more central are > scholarships and funding, the more centralization, and I think the > less level the field. I do realize one could make the same argument > of a non-level field about individuals and groups and countries that > can manage their own funding, but in my experience central funding > skews a gathering. > > I'd rather lean towards 1) hosting meetings with 360 days notice so > that those of us with airline miles can try for awards and those who > need to be included in annual travel budgets for their groups can > apply, 2) hosting meetings at sites where there is airline competition > and routing choices so that airfares are lower, and 3) hosting > meetings at locations that are less costly (in the US, there are > retreat and conference centers that are less urban). I've found > Geneva, Tunis, Athens, Rio sites remote, convenient accommodations > expensive, inexpensive food hard to find. I've paid for these trips > myself and I'm not sure how many others self-pay - perhaps this isn't > representative. > > Sylvia > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jul 10 03:58:43 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:58:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] G 8 FYI References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719303@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IPR Report 2009.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 311544 bytes Desc: IPR Report 2009.pdf URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 10 06:10:45 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:10:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message <4A5506BA.9020301 at cavebear.com>, at 13:51:06 on Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Karl Auerbach writes >On 07/08/2009 06:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4A548A44.8040108 at cavebear.com>, at 05:00:04 on Wed, 8 Jul >> 2009, Karl Auerbach writes >> >>> When the 9-11 catastrophe occurred much of Africa and South America >>> fell off the net. >> >> (Although some not until a fortnight later). > >You should read the NANOG reports on what happened. I was reading the list at the time, and also speaking in person to many of the posters. >It was not DNS related. The major issue was obviously connectivity of users to websites - DNS shouldn't have a widespread single-point-of-failure in NY; but there were also some countries which unexpected "disappeared" a fortnight later when their cached DNS entries expired. >It was more a matter that at that time Africa and S. America were >net-topologically dependencies of a few buildings in NYC. That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF issue though). >> Elsewhere you have advocated for a wider range of tlds in the root (eg >> dot-ewe) but are you also advocating that all tlds must first pass a >> test of global resilience and redundancy? > >If you read more deeply I say that that is a choice for the operator of >the root zone that accepts a given TLD. If a sloppy root system wants >to accept TLDs with weak procedures, then, assuming users can know >about this, That is of course the main consumer protection issue. How and why are they supposed to make these judgements? And remember we are talking here about the average Internet user who is a client of those websites, not the website operators themselves. Are you really wanting customers to boycott suppliers who use websites hosted with "weaker" DNS? >then that would be OK. But for root zone operator such ICANN which >promotes high quality TLD products, their standards ought to be rather >higher. And you propose ICANN be stricter about redundancy of the DNS? That may be necessary, I'm not sure. Of course, the biggest hurdle is the somewhat arms length relationship between ICANN and the cctlds - the ones which are in some cases probably most likely to be run on a shoestring. As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant whose content I want to access. >> If all of an ISP's customers could no longer see .com (because of bad >> data in their DNS resolver), they'd probably hear about it fairly quickly. > >Perhaps. Suppose the net becomes further cross-coupled with other >infrastructures. How might a VoIP phone establish a call to an ISP to >report the problem when the SIP phone number is under .com? Or what if >the directory that lists the ISP's phone number is under .com? You have to expect that a failure in .com will be noticed by people other than those VoIP customers. When it's fixed it will hopefully be fixed for all of them. (The same sort of thing happens when a power cut takes out a GSM base-station. You can't call anyone to tell them, but the lights probably also went out somewhere with a landline phone, who gets busy reporting it on everyone's behalf). >Most of us feel that reliable DNS is worth buying. That's because we >view domain names as some sort of rock of eternal use. But for some >short lived purposes reliability might not be worth paying for. If one >only needs a domain name to be stable for a few minutes or days then >there might be large cost savings possible if a provider can avoid >building things like data escrow and backups. That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user". >The point is that ICANN is imposed a very top-down view of what the >internet should be onto the DNS. It is a very unimaginative view and >ICANN is very xenophobic about new ideas. > >Had ICANN's mentality held sway in 1972 it is likely that the internet >would never have been born. I'm struggling with that, because the original framework of .com/.org/.gov etc, plus cctlds dates from way before ICANN. Whether they are using the most elegant method or not, ICANN does seem to be trying to increase the competition in gtlds, and let's not forget IDNs, which may be George's elephant in the room: perhaps delay in introducing them *is* hurting one section of the Internet-using public. >>> It's not necessarily something that "anyone" could do. To build a >>> usable subset of DNS it would be useful to have query densities so as >>> to know what to prune - a DVD isn't enough to hold all of DNS. Some >>> TLD operators would consider that kind of data to be rather >>> proprietary. ICANN has more leverage to pry out that data than a mere >>> mortal. >> >> There seem to be plenty of sites that claim to list the "top 100 >> websites" or whatever. Were you wanting to include every domain's DNS >> data, or just the zone files from each tld? > >Website data is easier to obtain than DNS data. Websites are often >filled with web bugs ranging from one-bit-pixels as used by >www.whitehouse.gov (in utter violation of their published privacy >policy) to things like Google's "urchin". (And there is also website >tracking via Adobe Flash cookies.) > >So website data can be bought. And wherever that data came from, all you need is a list of the "top X popular websites" for your DNS DVD, and for the purposes of that DVD ignore the "long tail". If you manage to facilitate 98% of Internet traffic via this DVD, isn't that good enough as an emergency measure? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 10 06:44:22 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:14:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement? In-Reply-To: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> References: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A571B86.8090109@itforchange.net> Quick comments, will read in detail and come back again. i support Bill's opposition to the now bracketed part which is giving a new definition of IG. I also oppose use of any phrase like 'Internet model of IG' in the earlier para. I would have liked to be more constructive and offer text here in the last few days, but I have been for a few different reasons been off-work. However, as I earlier suggested there a lot of IGC text of IGF review in the last year or so and it will be good to pick chunks form it since it already has support. I of course support the parts on inclusiveness and participation levels in the text below. I do think even if we have sent a lot of statements and text to IGF before, it is very useful to get text into the synthesis document. It may get read by important players as they prepare and present their view on IGF reform. parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > > There has been no comment on Bill Drake's re-posting of the IGF > Secretariat's questions, which I have posted at the bottom of this > email for your reference. In the case that the IGC has something to be > included in the synthesis paper, we would need to have a consensus > statement by July 15th. > > In our last attempt (June) at a consensus statement, the two biggest > problems seemed to be that a) some people feel the proposed statement > is too critical and/or not supportive enough of the IGF Secretariat's > work. I have re-read the proposed statements and find them to be > supportive, but including suggestions, as the Secretariat requests. > Please take a look and comment again. > > b) some people feel the statement is not substantive enough. I ask > that anyone who would like to add to the statement please post > proposed text. > > Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth > Graham's previous suggestions: > The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been > actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of > the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates > the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of > multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC believes > that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet > Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF process > by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multi-stakeholder > principle. > > [We feel however, that at least from the perspective of civil society. > this principle has not been fully implemented since many of those with > an active, even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the > Internet have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this > process.] [This bracketed text opposed by Jeanette Hoffman] > The IGC is particularly concerned about two essential issues: > > 1. The lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and > the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum > driven by decisions instead of discussion. [Ginger: I think this is > two points in one and should be separated] > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster > more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices > through, but not limited to, remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned > with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures > built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of > Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and > activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in > support of broad based economic and social development. > > > 2. The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens > understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance, > particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance. > > [Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, > integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we > believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG > definition of Internet governance to something more open. Rather than > a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil > society, “in their respective roles,” if roles and identities are > agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The > development and application by anyone of shared principles, norms, > rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the > evolution and use of the Internet."] [This bracketed text opposed by > Bill Drake][Ginger: I would completely eliminate number 2, or make it > much more specific] > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 07:07:20 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:37:20 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement? In-Reply-To: <4A571B86.8090109@itforchange.net> References: <4A549D26.3050108@gmail.com> <4A571B86.8090109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5720E8.5090500@gmail.com> Thanks for this input, Parminder. The whole Number 2 from below has been removed in the current version, and the current version is now included in an answer to Question No. 6. I am hoping for more proposed text today and tomorrow. I will also review our previous statements this weekend, and propose text by Sunday. However, it would be good to have more ideas from list members too. Sylvia and Shiva will propose text on their suggestions shortly. Best, Ginger Parminder wrote: > Quick comments, will read in detail and come back again. > > i support Bill's opposition to the now bracketed part which is giving > a new definition of IG. I also oppose use of any phrase like 'Internet > model of IG' in the earlier para. > > I would have liked to be more constructive and offer text here in the > last few days, but I have been for a few different reasons been off-work. > > However, as I earlier suggested there a lot of IGC text of IGF review > in the last year or so and it will be good to pick chunks form it > since it already has support. I of course support the parts on > inclusiveness and participation levels in the text below. > > I do think even if we have sent a lot of statements and text to IGF > before, it is very useful to get text into the synthesis document. It > may get read by important players as they prepare and present their > view on IGF reform. > > > > parminder > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> There has been no comment on Bill Drake's re-posting of the IGF >> Secretariat's questions, which I have posted at the bottom of this >> email for your reference. In the case that the IGC has something to >> be included in the synthesis paper, we would need to have a consensus >> statement by July 15th. >> >> In our last attempt (June) at a consensus statement, the two biggest >> problems seemed to be that a) some people feel the proposed statement >> is too critical and/or not supportive enough of the IGF Secretariat's >> work. I have re-read the proposed statements and find them to be >> supportive, but including suggestions, as the Secretariat requests. >> Please take a look and comment again. >> >> b) some people feel the statement is not substantive enough. I ask >> that anyone who would like to add to the statement please post >> proposed text. >> >> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth >> Graham's previous suggestions: >> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been >> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome >> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and >> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of >> the principle of >> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC believes >> that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet >> Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF >> process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the >> multi-stakeholder >> principle. >> >> [We feel however, that at least from the perspective of civil >> society. this principle has not been fully implemented since many of >> those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and >> deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been >> engaged in this process.] [This bracketed text opposed by Jeanette >> Hoffman] >> The IGC is particularly concerned about two essential issues: >> >> 1. The lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and >> the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum >> driven by decisions instead of discussion. [Ginger: I think this is >> two points in one and should be separated] >> >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the >> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive >> participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of >> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster >> more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices >> through, but not limited to, remote participation. >> >> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people >> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the >> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned >> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures >> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes >> of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in >> support of broad based economic and social development. >> >> >> 2. The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens >> understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance, >> particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance. >> >> [Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, >> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we >> believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG >> definition of Internet governance to something more open. Rather than >> a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil >> society, “in their respective roles,” if roles and identities are >> agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The >> development and application by anyone of shared principles, norms, >> rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the >> evolution and use of the Internet."] [This bracketed text opposed by >> Bill Drake][Ginger: I would completely eliminate number 2, or make it >> much more specific] >> >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 10 07:35:28 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Message-ID: <381177.12413.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any suggestions.  Great for goals and cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations.  People must get the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual or inclusiveness than results.  "Governance" is not the idea of developing, it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what will make us feel good.   In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go out and find folks to govern".  Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and politics. --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque wrote:   Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments. Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 10 07:41:58 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet Message-ID: <264965.18403.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> If international connectivity fell in the woods and there was no one around to hear it, would it still make a sound?  Roland, everything that is international connectivity - is - because of it's use. Names and addresses and numbers provide for that use. Hence the ANN. We really do not want connectivity so dudes and dudettes can stand around and say "cool". --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Roland Perry wrote: That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF issue though). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 07:43:53 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:43:53 +0500 Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber laws - Pakistan Message-ID: <701af9f70907100443t5fdfdea5p78873e6d66c1085c@mail.gmail.com> http://www.dawnnews.tv/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/sci-tech/16-a-body-for-transparent-cyber-laws-hs-06 ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly Standing Committee on Information Technology and Telecommu-nications has called for transparency, stricter laws and thorough investigation to protect users’ data in ‘Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (PECO) 2008’. The committee which met here at the National Assembly Secretariat endorsed the dissent note by Anusha Rehman Khan and Marvi Memon on the ordinance. Ms Rehman told the NA body that the PECO in its current form violated the fundamental rights of the people. She said the cyber law had wide ranging, unchecked investigatory powers, search and seizure of personal and corporate data, adding that it could take years to prove the offence. She said under the current law search and seizure could take place anytime and anywhere on any number of IT systems. The legislator said an accused had no legal guarantees that the computers taken into custody would not be implanted with false evidence or the data in computers would not be lost or damaged. Regarding Article 10, the first provision to the Section 25 of PECO, she told the body that the government could devise the procedure for investigation and prosecution of offences under the Cyber Law 2008. Ms Rehman pointed out that the PECO created fictional category of additional ‘electronic offences’ that would lead effectively to double punishment for the same offences like forgery, cheating, causing damage to an IT system. Thus, a person could be charged both under relevant sections and under the PECO. The ordinance also did not provide any protection to the property rights, she said, adding that no principles for compensations for such property loss were stated in the law. Ms Rehman said the sophisticated IT equipment and technical training programmes were required for investigation agencies. “A law is only required to cover two to three offences that are not covered elsewhere e.g. spamming, spoofing,” she added. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 07:50:55 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:50:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <381177.12413.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors... Interesting concept... Not sure what you do with the notions of democracy and citizenship built up over the last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the Internet is a special case... M -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Yes indeed. Leave the below out of any suggestions. Great for goals and cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations. People must get the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual or inclusiveness than results. "Governance" is not the idea of developing, it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what will make us feel good. In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go out and find folks to govern". Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and politics. --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque wrote: Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments. Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 10 07:56:49 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber laws - Pakistan Message-ID: <995474.8175.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please explain, perhaps why I am wrong.   Enacted laws still have to operate within and under constitutional, procedural and court mandated protections of individual rights. I assume there is nothing in this law that says all of those safeguards are suspended. It sounds like you are saying there is a new martial law in place regarding computers. To my knowledge this is not the case. --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: From: Fouad Bajwa Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber laws - Pakistan To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:43 AM http://www.dawnnews.tv/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/sci-tech/16-a-body-for-transparent-cyber-laws-hs-06 ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly Standing Committee on Information Technology and Telecommu-nications has called for transparency, stricter laws and thorough investigation to protect users’ data in ‘Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (PECO) 2008’. The committee which met here at the National Assembly Secretariat endorsed the dissent note by Anusha Rehman Khan and Marvi Memon on the ordinance. Ms Rehman told the NA body that the PECO in its current form violated the fundamental rights of the people. She said the cyber law had wide ranging, unchecked investigatory powers, search and seizure of personal and corporate data, adding that it could take years to prove the offence. She said under the current law search and seizure could take place anytime and anywhere on any number of IT systems. The legislator said an accused had no legal guarantees that the computers taken into custody would not be implanted with false evidence or the data in computers would not be lost or damaged. Regarding Article 10, the first provision to the Section 25 of PECO, she told the body that the government could devise the procedure for investigation and prosecution of offences under the Cyber Law 2008. Ms Rehman pointed out that the PECO created fictional category of additional ‘electronic offences’ that would lead effectively to double punishment for the same offences like forgery, cheating, causing damage to an IT system. Thus, a person could be charged both under relevant sections and under the PECO. The ordinance also did not provide any protection to the property rights, she said, adding that no principles for compensations for such property loss were stated in the law. Ms Rehman said the sophisticated IT equipment and technical training programmes were required for investigation agencies.  “A law is only required to cover two to three offences that are not covered elsewhere e.g. spamming, spoofing,” she added. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 10 08:03:38 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Message-ID: <759502.37198.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Very insghtful (incitefull) and humrous.  But yes governance is only for those who are governed.  I do not think we call this freedomance. We do not and should not create governing principles or principals and then go out and see who we can catch in our net.   Somehow international do gooders constantly interlope into what is basically intended as a system of setting up norms and co-opt them into international aid programs in order to garner publicity and further other agendas.  To be governed is to be restricted. We do not need to restrict activity of extremely poor people. We need to govern activity of those in power. --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: From: Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Eric Dierker'" , "'Sylvia Caras'" , "'Ginger Paque'" Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:50 AM Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors... Interesting concept...   Not sure what you do with the notions of democracy and citizenship built up over the last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the Internet is a special case...   M -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any suggestions.  Great for goals and cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations.  People must get the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual or inclusiveness than results.  "Governance" is not the idea of developing, it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what will make us feel good.   In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go out and find folks to govern".  Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and politics. --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque wrote:   Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments. Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 10 08:11:52 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement? Message-ID: <591561.54664.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This would be the epitome of open and transparent*; --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Parminder wrote: I do think even if we have sent a lot of statements and text to IGF before, it is very useful to get text into the synthesis document. It may get read by important players as they prepare and present their view on IGF reform. parminder * Unless as it looked at first, a "not" was missing? Certainly not? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 08:19:58 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:19:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <759502.37198.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Who is "we"... M -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:04 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Sylvia Caras'; 'Ginger Paque' Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Very insghtful (incitefull) and humrous. But yes governance is only for those who are governed. I do not think we call this freedomance. We do not and should not create governing principles or principals and then go out and see who we can catch in our net. Somehow international do gooders constantly interlope into what is basically intended as a system of setting up norms and co-opt them into international aid programs in order to garner publicity and further other agendas. To be governed is to be restricted. We do not need to restrict activity of extremely poor people. We need to govern activity of those in power. --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: From: Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Eric Dierker'" , "'Sylvia Caras'" , "'Ginger Paque'" Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:50 AM Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors... Interesting concept... Not sure what you do with the notions of democracy and citizenship built up over the last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the Internet is a special case... M -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Yes indeed. Leave the below out of any suggestions. Great for goals and cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations. People must get the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual or inclusiveness than results. "Governance" is not the idea of developing, it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what will make us feel good. In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go out and find folks to govern". Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and politics. --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque wrote: Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments. Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 10 09:33:28 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:33:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <264965.18403.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <264965.18403.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <264965.18403.qm at web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 04:41:58 on Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker writes >If international connectivity fell in the woods and there was no one >around to hear it, would it still make a sound?  That question makes little sense because if no-one notices the lack of a particular slice of connectivity, they don't need it to be there. >Roland, everything that is international connectivity - is - because of >it's use. But there are many people monitoring pretty much the whole Internet backbone, at a BGP level as well as the cables. Little will go un-noticed. >Names and addresses and numbers provide for that use. They are more useful at specifying end points, than the exact network in the middle. So ICANN is more the guardian of the infrastructure to determine specific end points, than worried about exactly how the packets flow across the oceans. Maybe we also need an ICBPT ... for backbones, peering and transit. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 10 13:47:54 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Message-ID: <835174.80537.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> That would include; Me, Myself.& I. A couple of dogs, about 9* fish and my 7 children whether they like it or not. And we still can't reach a consensus :-}   *pesky cranes and my 80lb wife like to catch and not release. --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: From: Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start To: "'Eric Dierker'" , governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Sylvia Caras'" , "'Ginger Paque'" Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 12:19 PM Who is "we"...   M -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:04 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Sylvia Caras'; 'Ginger Paque' Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Very insghtful (incitefull) and humrous.  But yes governance is only for those who are governed.  I do not think we call this freedomance. We do not and should not create governing principles or principals and then go out and see who we can catch in our net.   Somehow international do gooders constantly interlope into what is basically intended as a system of setting up norms and co-opt them into international aid programs in order to garner publicity and further other agendas.  To be governed is to be restricted. We do not need to restrict activity of extremely poor people. We need to govern activity of those in power. --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: From: Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Eric Dierker'" , "'Sylvia Caras'" , "'Ginger Paque'" Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:50 AM Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors... Interesting concept...   Not sure what you do with the notions of democracy and citizenship built up over the last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the Internet is a special case...   M -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any suggestions.  Great for goals and cheerleading but very destructive to building foundations.  People must get the fact that caring for the needy via the internet is not grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting accomodation. At best teh below approach will lead us to form general policy based on isolated non-representative experience and at norm lead us moribound into more worry about an individual or inclusiveness than results.  "Governance" is not the idea of developing, it is the idea of working with what we have, or what comes into it, not what will make us feel good.   In short - you do not form a governance model and then say "Now let us go out and find folks to govern".  Townhall meeting concepts are for pr and politics. --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque wrote:   Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your comments. Erik, did you have any specific requests, or just positive feedback for Jeremy's addition? If there was a change implied, I did not get it. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 15:06:26 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:06:26 +0500 Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber laws In-Reply-To: <995474.8175.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <995474.8175.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70907101206g25b20978nf6b748b7be186bd0@mail.gmail.com> Discussion: This law has been under critic and a major crisis story in the region since it originated in 2007. Yes, it depicted a new version of martial law because it first came in the General President's regime back then. Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (PECO) - Under this law it is a crime in Pakistan to take photographs of someone without their consent, also sending messages (email, sms etc) that can be considered lewd and uncivilized shall be considered a crime which is punishable by law and the person found guilty of this act can be punished with seven (7) years imprisonment or Rs. 300,000 penalty or both. If you search Dispute over Electronic Crimes Ordinance in Pakistan in Google, you will find a lot of videos, concerns etc. Title: Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2008 (Ordinance No. IX of 2008) Country: Pakistan Entry into force: 2008 Language: English Description: Pakistan\'s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance came into force on the 29 Septempber 2008. It makes provision for prevention of the electronic crimes and extends to the whole of Pakistan. The Ordinance shall apply to every person who commits an electronic offence irrespective of his nationality or citizenship whatsoever or in any place outside or inside Pakistan, having detrimental effect on the security of Pakistan or its nationals or national harmony or any property or any electronic system or data located in Pakistan or any electronic system or data capable of being connected, sent to, used by or with any electronic system in Pakistan. links: http://www.na.gov.pk/ordinances/prevention_electronic_crimes280108.pdf http://www.fia.gov.pk/electronic_prevention_orde.pdf This is the 2007 version: http://www.pakistanlaw.com/electronic_prevention_ord.pdf http://www.naseerahmad.com/2008/01/24/prevention-of-electronic-crimes-ordinance-pakistan-2007.html In November last year, under the new regime, it was promulgated as the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2008 (Ordinance No. IX of 2008): http://pklawyers.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/cyber-crimes-ordinance-2008/ http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58277&Itemid=1 http://pklawyers.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/cyber-crimes-ordinance-2008/ Here are some interesting faces of this law: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26762898 at N08/3358890495/ On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Please explain, perhaps why I am wrong. > > Enacted laws still have to operate within and under constitutional, > procedural and court mandated protections of individual rights. I assume > there is nothing in this law that says all of those safeguards are > suspended. It sounds like you are saying there is a new martial law in place > regarding computers. To my knowledge this is not the case. > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] National Assembly NA body for transparent cyber laws - > Pakistan > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:43 AM > > http://www.dawnnews.tv/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/sci-tech/16-a-body-for-transparent-cyber-laws-hs-06 > > ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly Standing Committee on Information > Technology and Telecommu-nications has called for transparency, > stricter laws and thorough investigation to protect users’ data in > ‘Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (PECO) 2008’. > > The committee which met here at the National Assembly Secretariat > endorsed the dissent note by Anusha Rehman Khan and Marvi Memon on the > ordinance. > > Ms Rehman told the NA body that the PECO in its current form violated > the fundamental rights of the people. > > She said the cyber law had wide ranging, unchecked investigatory > powers, search and seizure of personal and corporate data, adding that > it could take years to prove the offence. > > She said under the current law search and seizure could take place > anytime and anywhere on any number of IT systems. > > The legislator said an accused had no legal guarantees that the > computers taken into custody would not be implanted with false > evidence or the data in computers would not be lost or damaged. > > Regarding Article 10, the first provision to the Section 25 of PECO, > she told the body that the government could devise the procedure for > investigation and prosecution of offences under the Cyber Law 2008. > > Ms Rehman pointed out that the PECO created fictional category of > additional ‘electronic offences’ that would lead effectively to double > punishment for the same offences like forgery, cheating, causing > damage to an IT system. Thus, a person could be charged both under > relevant sections and under the PECO. > > The ordinance also did not provide any protection to the property > rights, she said, adding that no principles for compensations for such > property loss were stated in the law. > > Ms Rehman said the sophisticated IT equipment and technical training > programmes were required for investigation agencies.  “A law is only > required to cover two to three offences that are not covered elsewhere > e.g. spamming, spoofing,” she added. > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ 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 From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 16:01:34 2009 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:01:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> Message-ID: With considerable help from Ginger, I'd like to have added: Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is competitive and convenient. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ 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 From karl at cavebear.com Fri Jul 10 17:51:15 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:51:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4A57B7D3.7050704@cavebear.com> On 07/10/2009 03:10 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> If you read more deeply I say that that is a choice for the operator >> of the root zone that accepts a given TLD. If a sloppy root system >> wants to accept TLDs with weak procedures, then, assuming users can >> know about this, > > That is of course the main consumer protection issue. How and why are > they supposed to make these judgements? And remember we are talking here > about the average Internet user who is a client of those websites, not > the website operators themselves. Are you really wanting customers to > boycott suppliers who use websites hosted with "weaker" DNS? Let's dig into that. First of all, ICANN is not a consumer protection agency. It was not created to do that at all. And if it were not only does it not have the proper form, charter, and powers but also it would be very odd indeed when one notices that it would then be a consumer protection body that not only locks-out consumers from the decision making process but also encourages those who prey on consumers into the inner sanctums of that decision making process. Secondly, as for the issue of whether people need to look to and chose DNS providers. Some do, some don't. With regard to the some do: If person X (you for instance) are buying a domain name then why should we have a regulatory body that denies you the choice of buying a name from a highly robust TLD/registry (such as operated by Verisign) or from a wimpy TLD registry (such as a hypothetical .i-may-go-boom-tomorrow)? As long as the information about the quality of the operation is available to you why should we impose a regulatory regime that denies you the choice? One aspect of this that is not discussed much is that one thing that is missing from the world-according-to-ICANN is the ability for people to lock-in their contractual terms. ICANN imposes an arbitrary (and very capricious) and also inadequate 10 year limit. In other words, on the internet is ICANN to be our (or our brother's) keeper? With regard to the some don't: If customers or clients can not reach a net service or website because the person behind that service/site has a name in a weak TLD then that person's suffers when the client takes his/her custom elsewhere. Self interest will drive people who want to offer reliable net service/applications to the robust (but usually more expensive) TLDs. But for someone who wants to save some money perhaps they are willing to take the risk that .i-may-go-boom-tomorrow will in fact crash on the next rising of the sun. The logic that says that the user/client is harmed by shakey DNS and that therefore those providing net services must be forced to buy only from highly solid providers is a logic that would also require net services to be hosted only on the most rock solid of computers with the most rock solid of power systems and connected by links of unimpeachable quality. Wanna make the net as expensive as the telcos of 1970? - that's the path to do it. One of the reasons that VoIP seems so inexpensive compared to telco services is that the telcos are burdened with massive costs to keep things running with lifeline grade quality. VoIP providers don't have to bear that. The logic that says that all DNS providers must offer lifeline levels of availablity is a logic that would deny existence to VoIP unless that VoIP met telco lifeline grade availability. Let's not go down that path and require that every part of all of the net be so hardened that it will almost never fail. That would be the death of many home or office based net services and it would most certainly raise the cost of the net to prices that many, particularly in "southern" regions could not afford. >> then that would be OK. But for root zone operator such ICANN which >> promotes high quality TLD products, their standards ought to be rather >> higher. > > And you propose ICANN be stricter about redundancy of the DNS? Yes, for those who sign contracts with ICANN. But I also propose that other root zone operators ought to be able to come to exist outside of ICANN and those might impose using lesser or greater standards via their own contractual relationships. That may > be necessary, I'm not sure. Of course, the biggest hurdle is the > somewhat arms length relationship between ICANN and the cctlds - the > ones which are in some cases probably most likely to be run on a > shoestring. Many ccTLDs are (or were) run by Randy Bush. (When I was at ICANN we transferred control of one ccTLD on the basis of a blank sheet of paper signed with an unverified signature by an unknown person.) In the scheme that I have proposed for new TLDs and "competing roots" ccTLDs would be like any other TLD: they would have to come to an agreement with the root zone operator for inclusion in that operator's offerings. (But any root zone operator that didn't gather all the ccTLDs, indeed all of ICANN's TLDs, would be foolish and would find itself quickly out of business.) > As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between > using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant > whose content I want to access. Yes. And also that registrant has the choice whether to apply electricity to the servers that produce the service you want. The point I'm making is that it is the provider of a net service who has the choice whether to provide it or even to allow particular people to use it. It is not a right that is vested in the client, the network user. >>> If all of an ISP's customers could no longer see .com (because of bad >>> data in their DNS resolver), they'd probably hear about it fairly >>> quickly. >> >> Perhaps. Suppose the net becomes further cross-coupled with other >> infrastructures. How might a VoIP phone establish a call to an ISP to >> report the problem when the SIP phone number is under .com? Or what if >> the directory that lists the ISP's phone number is under .com? > > You have to expect that a failure in .com will be noticed by people > other than those VoIP customers. It is quite within the realm of possibility that the failure of .com could lead to all kinds of dependent failures. For example, I would not be surprised to see some areas lose electrical service as a result. Here in Santa Cruz we lost the net a few months ago when someone cut fiber optic lines. All kinds of unexpected side effects happened - gasoline stations had to shut down, 911 service on some hardwire phones stopped working, etc. When it's fixed it will hopefully be > fixed for all of them. That seems not to be the case. Once an infrastructure goes down the reviving seems to be a process of triage and piecemeal recovery. I know about this because here in Santa Cruz we go through this cycle several times a year. >> Most of us feel that reliable DNS is worth buying. That's because we >> view domain names as some sort of rock of eternal use. But for some >> short lived purposes reliability might not be worth paying for. If one >> only needs a domain name to be stable for a few minutes or days then >> there might be large cost savings possible if a provider can avoid >> building things like data escrow and backups. > > That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was > wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user". Yes, let's allow internet users - who are frequently also providers of internet services - the ability to pick and chose the net facilities that best fit with their needs and finances. Why should we have an ICANN that imposes the most expensive (and the most trademark protective) system onto everyone. The ICANN world is a one-size-fits-all-as-long-as-it-is-from-Tiffany world. That kind of mother-knows-best-for-you paternalism should not be a part of the internet of today. Sure consumers need protection. But that is usually done with publication of information coupled by standards to assure safety. >> The point is that ICANN is imposed a very top-down view of what the >> internet should be onto the DNS. It is a very unimaginative view and >> ICANN is very xenophobic about new ideas. >> >> Had ICANN's mentality held sway in 1972 it is likely that the internet >> would never have been born. > > I'm struggling with that, because the original framework of > .com/.org/.gov etc, plus cctlds dates from way before ICANN. That's not my point. The point is that the "no innovation because it might confuse or surprise users" flag that ICANN waves is one that, had it been in place in the early 1970's would have said "that new fangled packet switching stuff confuses users of switched circuits, and besides, packet switching throws away packets upon congestion and thus it is bad and must be kept away from users." > Whether they are using the most elegant method or not, ICANN does seem > to be trying to increase the competition in gtlds, If I believed that I would also be the proud owner of the Brooklyn Bridge. ICANN has granted so few new TLDs that it has made a mockery of the process. And ICANN's regulatory scheme makes those few largely clones of one another. If ICANN really were promoting competition the first thing it would need to do would be to let new vendors into the marketplace. ICANN has not done that. Then ICANN would have to let those vendors innovate. ICANN is very much against that. and let's not forget > IDNs, which may be George's elephant in the room: perhaps delay in > introducing them *is* hurting one section of the Internet-using public. Sheesh. When the button/touch tone phones were introduced the public was harmed - huge parts of the public with old rotary dial phones could not reach new services. New things do hurt the installed base. It is a price we pay. In some rare instances we chose not to move forward and deny a new technology. My country did that for the better part of a decade by denying promising stem cell research because to do that research offended certain religious communities. The internet is still far too new to ossify by restricting innovation or larding it with huge taxes or private tax equivalents (ICANN's tax and fiat registry fee amounts to the better part of $1,000,000 (USD) a year). > And wherever that data came from, all you need is a list of the "top X > popular websites" for your DNS DVD, The world wide web is but one service on the internet. An emergency boot-up-and-go DVD that encompassed only the web would be deficient. During an emergency, voice, email, and text message loads tend to go way, way up. Web stuff tends to diminish in relation. (By-the-way, one of the best ways to help release web-dependencies during troubled times is to map the names www.google-analytics.com and ssl.google-analytics.com to IP address 127.0.0.1. It is amazing how many web pages cause side queries to google's analysis gathering sites.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 18:15:23 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:45:23 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A57BD7B.2000400@gmail.com> Thanks, Silvia! I have added Silvia's proposed text below. Please comment, add, suggest... opine, on this or any other question, as soon as possible. Best, Ginger "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?" Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is competitive and convenient. [Text to be re-written by Shiva] suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. Sylvia Caras wrote: > With considerable help from Ginger, I'd like to have added: > > > Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex > decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with > few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular > sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options > make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should > be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites > should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is > competitive and convenient. > > > Sylvia > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Jul 11 01:37:23 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:07:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <4A55CEC7.9090106@wzb.eu> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <7105034A-9480-4204-B88A-669045B76B92@ciroap.org> <4A55CEC7.9090106@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hello Jeanette Hofmann and All, The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of discussing this with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs work when this idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF Secretariat. Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for Panelists ( and for participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the actual physical, direct outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for organizing the IGF. But $ 700,000 or even a million or a little more is minuscule if we pause for a while to assess and understand the true cost of the IGF. Calcuate the time spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in deliberations in preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings, in email communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is spent traveling to attending the IGF. A hundered hours spent by everyone of the 1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and attending the IGF. For these 1000 participants alone, it is (100+150) X 1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per hour, considering the profiles and positions of most participants, which amounts to $ 12.5 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the cost of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host team, and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum. Add to that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF Secretariat. Add to the that the cost of sending and receiving email messages like this, and the invisible cost of online space for discussing IGF issues. For most participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ? of an event such as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is that if we assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF meeting, he would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million every year. A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a visible and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the diversity of participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000 (unconditional) fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider even more liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses that would double or triple the quality of the IGF. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it > important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent > of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active > participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries. > > The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not > responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we > phrase such matters. > > jeanette > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello Coordinators, >> >> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of >> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as >> opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied >> conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a >> fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel >> speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class >> airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in >> excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two >> recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the >> panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to >> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ >> 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs >> and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable >> the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are >> not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who >> have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in >> traveling to the IGF. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote: >> >> On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what >> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, >> functioning and processes?" >> >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that >> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more >> inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not >> needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the >> search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard >> and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >> remote participation. >> >> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, >> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those >> who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, >> those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access >> governance structures built on an electronic platform, those >> looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of >> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, >> and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing >> the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based >> economic and social development. >> >> >> >> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of >> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable >> in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental >> summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate >> for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as >> an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, >> perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet >> governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most >> work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and >> regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more >> of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. >> >> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce >> more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. >> In the past various such innovations have been considered - >> including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable >> discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through >> with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder >> representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never >> is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the >> long term it it does not prove its value to the international >> community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding >> statements on Internet public policy issues. >> >> -- JEREMY MALCOLM >> Project Coordinator >> CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE >> for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM >> 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg >> TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> Mob: +60 12 282 5895 >> Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 >> www.consumersinternational.org >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global >> campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations >> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer >> movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more >> information, visit www.consumersinternational.org >> . >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jul 11 05:09:36 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:09:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A57B7D3.7050704@cavebear.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> <4A57B7D3.7050704@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4A10V7yQbFWKFAke@perry.co.uk> In message <4A57B7D3.7050704 at cavebear.com>, at 14:51:15 on Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Karl Auerbach writes >On 07/10/2009 03:10 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > >>> If you read more deeply I say that that is a choice for the operator >>> of the root zone that accepts a given TLD. If a sloppy root system >>> wants to accept TLDs with weak procedures, then, assuming users can >>> know about this, >> >> That is of course the main consumer protection issue. How and why are >> they supposed to make these judgements? And remember we are talking here >> about the average Internet user who is a client of those websites, not >> the website operators themselves. Are you really wanting customers to >> boycott suppliers who use websites hosted with "weaker" DNS? > >Let's dig into that. > >First of all, ICANN is not a consumer protection agency. It appears to discuss things like protecting the privacy of that small subset of consumers who are registrants, but also helps protect the "average user" by rules about the WHOIS so the bad guys have more trouble hiding. >It was not created to do that at all. And if it were not only does it >not have the proper form, charter, and powers but also it would be very >odd indeed when one notices that it would then be a consumer protection >body that not only locks-out consumers from the decision making process A body can be considerate of consumer protection issues without that being its prime purpose. As for representation, isn't that where ALAC and NCUC come in? >but also encourages those who prey on consumers into the inner sanctums >of that decision making process. What kinds of harm do you think they are conspiring to inflict upon the ordinary user - this is exactly the question I think George was asking so I'm very interested in your answer. >Secondly, as for the issue of whether people need to look to and chose >DNS providers. > >Some do, some don't. > >With regard to the some do: If person X (you for instance) are buying >a domain name then why should we have a regulatory body that denies you >the choice of buying a name from a highly robust TLD/registry (such as >operated by Verisign) or from a wimpy TLD registry (such as a >hypothetical .i-may-go-boom-tomorrow)? As long as the information >about the quality of the operation is available to you why should we >impose a regulatory regime that denies you the choice? Registrants are not "average Internet users", the latter having no influence over where the registrants choose to buy their names. > When it's fixed it will hopefully be >> fixed for all of them. > >That seems not to be the case. Once an infrastructure goes down the >reviving seems to be a process of triage and piecemeal recovery. I >know about this because here in Santa Cruz we go through this cycle >several times a year. Fixed for everyone, until the next outage, of course. Sometimes the next outage will be less likely as a result of the fix, sometimes not :( >let's allow internet users - who are frequently also providers of >internet services - the ability to pick and chose the net facilities >that best fit with their needs and finances. In a world of Web2.0, I can't see an easy way for people using Google's platform to influence the tld that Google uses. >Sure consumers need protection. But that is usually done with >publication of information coupled by standards to assure safety. Caveat Emptor (who also has a science degree to understand the information). Sorry, but I talk with real "average users" every day, and that just doesn't work. >The point is that the "no innovation because it might confuse or >surprise users" flag that ICANN waves is one that, had it been in place >in the early 1970's would have said "that new fangled packet switching >stuff confuses users of switched circuits, and besides, packet >switching throws away packets upon congestion and thus it is bad and >must be kept away from users." And yet ICANN has embraced ipv6. How did that happen? >> Whether they are using the most elegant method or not, ICANN does seem >> to be trying to increase the competition in gtlds, > >If I believed that I would also be the proud owner of the Brooklyn Bridge. It seems extraordinary if the new gtld process is designed to reduce the number of gtlds - but I suppose it could if it results in a few of the sponsored ones being re-examined to see if they "have clothes", *and* no new ones every being assigned. >ICANN has granted so few new TLDs that it has made a mockery of the >process. Which is why there's the current new-gtld process to take a different approach to the problem. > and let's not forget >> IDNs, which may be George's elephant in the room: perhaps delay in >> introducing them *is* hurting one section of the Internet-using public. > >Sheesh. When the button/touch tone phones were introduced the public >was harmed - huge parts of the public with old rotary dial phones could >not reach new services. I hadn't thought of it that way. So when a Japanese site is only available at a Japanese url, that prevents those of us without a Japanese keyboard from accessing it. But as I don't speak Japanese, I'm somewhat in their hands already if I want to access the site (ie they have to provide an English version too). >The internet is still far too new to ossify by restricting innovation >or larding it with huge taxes or private tax equivalents (ICANN's tax >and fiat registry fee amounts to the better part of $1,000,000 (USD) a >year). Where does that figure some from. Earlier, I worked out that their $60m budget was 3c per Internet users. Is 3c "huge"? >> And wherever that data came from, all you need is a list of the "top X >> popular websites" for your DNS DVD, > >The world wide web is but one service on the internet. An emergency >boot-up-and-go DVD that encompassed only the web would be deficient. > >During an emergency, voice, email, and text message loads tend to go >way, way up. Web stuff tends to diminish in relation. So you'd have to advertise the existence of the DVD and people with services they wanted to protect could have their DNS added in. I'm still not sure, by the way, if your DVD is to have more than the zone files from all the tlds - do you want the DNS of every registered domain as well, or is it good enough to have a pointer to each domain's DNS. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jul 11 05:20:41 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:20:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message <4A57E366.2B1B8A60 at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:57:10 on Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >> That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But >> international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF >> issue though). > > I disagree. The ASO and the ISP constituency, part of ICANN, >is directly related to these sorts of issues. The company making undersea cables is probably represented via the Commercial and Business Users Constituency, but that's to discuss their domain name registration, not the thickness of the copper. >>Are you really wanting customers to boycott suppliers who use >>websites hosted with "weaker" DNS? > >Yes, our members do exactly so. Can you point us to a list of your members, so we can see what kind of entities they are? >> As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between >> using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant >> whose content I want to access. > > DNS is DNS, how it is configured is a completely different matter. Physical configuration is the main issue here. >> That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was >> wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user". > >Registrants are users too. But are a very small subset, and the objective was to discuss how ICANN affects the *others*, who are "average users". >Restricted trade that is not fully justified is legal harm. Such harm >impacts everyone. I'm restricted from practising as a dentist (I haven't passed the exams). Is that harming everyone? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jul 11 07:56:12 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 07:56:12 -0400 Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I agree with this suggestion and this analysis. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:37 AM To: Jeanette Hofmann Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Hello Jeanette Hofmann and All, The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of discussing this with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs work when this idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF Secretariat. Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for Panelists ( and for participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the actual physical, direct outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for organizing the IGF. But $ 700,000 or even a million or a little more is minuscule if we pause for a while to assess and understand the true cost of the IGF. Calcuate the time spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in deliberations in preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings, in email communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is spent traveling to attending the IGF. A hundered hours spent by everyone of the 1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and attending the IGF. For these 1000 participants alone, it is (100+150) X 1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per hour, considering the profiles and positions of most participants, which amounts to $ 12.5 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the cost of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host team, and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum. Add to that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF Secretariat. Add to the that the cost of sending and receiving email messages like this, and the invisible cost of online space for discussing IGF issues. For most participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ? of an event such as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is that if we assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF meeting, he would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million every year. A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a visible and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the diversity of participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000 (unconditional) fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider even more liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses that would double or triple the quality of the IGF. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Hi, the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries. The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we phrase such matters. jeanette Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Hello Coordinators, As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?" Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org . ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Jul 11 09:24:28 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: p06200770c67928a31a6a@[10.0.1.3] Message-ID: George, Let’s categorize a few baseline definitions for “Average Internet User” first, Then let’s define “Hurt” … the User, as Icann’s actions effect them directly, and as those action affect the interactive-relationship between them, and how the action affects the system holistically (systemics). Lets keep it simple (K.I.S.S.). At the starting level there are those who simply access the internet in various ways to; Surf, Shop, & Message (Via: Home computer, Work Computer, Internet Café, Handi’s (Cell Device, etc…). In an asymmetric scenario they are at the receiving end of the Push. These are the ‘Common Users’ of the Net (i.e.: Net-Tourist). The next level is the ‘Commercial Service Users’, these Folks use commercial services like: eBay, Skype, Craigslist, Wordpress, Paypal (i.e.: They are commerce account holders) etc. They are the Street Pushers, in an asymmetric scenario. Next level is the ‘Hosting Service Users’, they typically subscribe to a Hosting provider, but do not run their own Web Server \ Name Server, they may own a small number of Domains (1-20) and actually have hosted sites for a few of those, the rest are inventory (i.e.: SoHo’s). They are the SoHo Pushers, in an asymmetric scenario (i.e.: Professional Services). Up a level too ‘Self Hosted Users’ they run their own in-house Sever and typically own (1-50) Domains for a variety of uses (email, content, voip. foip, porting addresses, etc..) They range from small to medium business companies, and depend on Local and National commerce (sales) , not International business. >From this we enter the realm of the ‘SoHo Domainers’, they hold a number of Domains from One too One Hundred (50-100) . These Domains are: Parked, Forwarded, & held as Speculative Inventory for a possible future Startup. SoHo Domineers’ use commercial drop services of: SnapNames, Pool, NameJet, Go Daddy, & Moniker etc… to acquire domains and sell Domains. The SoHo Domainers’ budget is pretty much regulated by the annual size of their wallet, and typically won’t want to spend more than $100 for a Domain, but may spend upward to $400. Depends upon what they are trying to accomplish, and the personal funds available. Next up, ‘Domain Traders’ these guys buy and sell domains for a living, the Domain is a inventory asset, it is usually: Parked for Sale or Listed with the Commercial Drop Services. Domain Traders’ speculate heavily on new TDLs for the cash cow Domain Names (i.e.: sex(dot)anything). A Domain Traders’ portfolio is anywhere from 100 – 1000 Domains in investment inventory. They are not Registers, and frequent Auctions to Buy, Sell and Trade. The upper end may spend up to 10K depending on their margin, for a Domain. The ‘Domain Brokers’ hits the upper limit of Domain inventory investment, these portfolios are in excess of thousands (1000+), the Players are typically ICANN sanctioned Domain Registers backed by Investment Capital funds. Moniker, Go Daddy, Momentous, T.R.A.F.F.I.C., AfterMarket, Overseer etc…The Domain Brokers host & fuel the Domain market with Live Auctions and Events, and keep their ball rolling. A last there are the Registrars and Registries, their mediacy of DNS Names allows them access to nearly an infinite amount of Domain Names, of which the inventory is related to the creativeness of the Original Registrant (whatever(dot)anything). So let’s recap the User Groups: Common Users (Net-Tourist), Commercial Service Users (non-hosting), Hosting Service Users (1-20 Domains), Self Hosted Users (1-50 Domains), SoHo Domainers (50-100 Domains), Domain Traders (100-1000 Domains), Domain Brokers (1000+ Domains), & Registrars and Registries (infinite). ... -- Now let’s define ‘Hurt’ … the Internet User, in terms of: Social, Economic, Developmental, & Geo Political effects. Socially, how does it affect the Groups. Economically, how does it affect the Groups. Developmentally, how does it affect the Groups. Geo Politically, how does it affect the Groups. ----- I’ll break these up into individual posts [Social, Economic, Developmental, & Geo Political effects], too lessen the length of this post: How do ICANN's actions hurt Socially, How do ICANN's actions hurt Economically, How do ICANN's actions hurt Developmentally, How do ICANN's actions hurt Geo Politically. -- Sorry, I did not intent to make your question into a Thesis. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jul 11 16:20:42 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:20:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A58E4EB.7B1E52E6@ix.netcom.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com> <4A58E4EB.7B1E52E6@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message <4A58E4EB.7B1E52E6 at ix.netcom.com>, at 12:15:55 on Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >> >> That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But >> >> international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF >> >> issue though). >> > >> > I disagree. The ASO and the ISP constituency, part of ICANN, >> >is directly related to these sorts of issues. >> >> The company making undersea cables is probably represented via the >> Commercial and Business Users Constituency, but that's to discuss their >> domain name registration, not the thickness of the copper. > >I agree that the thickness or the copper for makers of undersea cable >has no berring on ICANN. I seriously doubt and know of a few >cases or incidents where such makers of undersea cable have much >more to discuss behind the scenes with ICANN than just their domain >name registration. So you agree that many people don't go to ICANN to be told how to run their day jobs. Including ISP connectivity and the assignment of IP addresses. >> Can you point us to a list of your members, so we can see what kind of >> entities they are? > > No I certainly cannot publically without their express written permission. Could you ask them? >> >> As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between >> >> using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant >> >> whose content I want to access. >> > >> > DNS is DNS, how it is configured is a completely different matter. >> >> Physical configuration is the main issue here. > >No. Physical configuration is only one PART and not the MAIN part >as hardware has not near as much to do with DNS as software does. But as an end user, I have little practical choice in the matter. I have to use the DNS that the information provider I'm contacting has chosen. And as we've been talking about complete outages, I really do think those are more often caused by failure of the physical configuration, rather than the software. >> >> That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was >> >> wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user". >> > >> >Registrants are users too. >> >> But are a very small subset, and the objective was to discuss how ICANN >> affects the *others*, who are "average users". > >Registrants are average users as well as being registrants. Not to the extent that we have to treat them differently in a discussion of ICANN's effect upon "average" users. In fact I' not even sure I agree they are "average", but it doesn't matter anyway. >> >Restricted trade that is not fully justified is legal harm. Such harm >> >impacts everyone. >> >> I'm restricted from practising as a dentist (I haven't passed the >> exams). Is that harming everyone? > >Apples and potatos here. A straw man argument does nothing >to promote or justify a false premise and therefore is an illogical >argument. The fact that contrived and perhaps illegally contrived >restraint of trade due to poor or bad policy and the implimentation >of same IS a harm and may be an illegal harm at that. Nice try >here Roeland, but no cigar. You could at least try to spell my name right. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jul 11 16:34:09 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:34:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A58E901.5AC1E9DE@ix.netcom.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> <4A57B7D3.7050704@cavebear.com> <4A10V7yQbFWKFAke@perry.co.uk> <4A58E901.5AC1E9DE@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message <4A58E901.5AC1E9DE at ix.netcom.com>, at 12:33:21 on Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >Privacy protection is not about hiding, it is about protecting from >abuse. I don't call legitimate reasons to want to identify who I'm doing business with an "abuse". >The ALAC is not about openess and transparency. As such it in it's >current form cannot reasonably represent users. So you think the ALAC's actions are adversely affecting average users? Can you give some examples. >> What kinds of harm do you think they are conspiring to inflict upon the >> ordinary user - this is exactly the question I think George was asking >> so I'm very interested in your answer. > >There are not ordinary users per se. Who are "they"? >Again there are no "Average Internet users". Of course there are. All those people sat at home on the end of cable modems, DSL and even dial-up. > All users, registrants or non-registrants have a reasonable >expectation that wherever some potential registrant buys their Domain >Name, that that Registrar is operating in an honest and above board >manner. Such has proven too many times to not be the case. Ergo, ALL >users are damaged accordingly. How does it damage the average user, if a registrant suffers a problem with their registry? (Apart from those time the registry accepts incorrect WHOIS information). >> In a world of Web2.0, I can't see an easy way for people using Google's >> platform to influence the tld that Google uses. > >WEB2.0 is DOA at present, and unlikely to be revived despite the >rhetoric to the contrary. Forget the web2.0 aspects then, what about people using the web1.0 bits of Google? >Why should there be a restriction of new TLD's? But you seem to want better assurance that "Registrars [are] operating in an honest and above board manner. Such has proven too many times to not be the case." Would that mysteriously fix itself if anyone could run a tld registry? >>So when a Japanese site is only >> available at a Japanese url, that prevents those of us without a >> Japanese keyboard from accessing it. But as I don't speak Japanese, I'm >> somewhat in their hands already if I want to access the site (ie they >> have to provide an English version too). > >They? Who is they exactly? Perhaps you mean the Japanese IDN >domain holder? Yes, that's "them". > If so, why should they be required to provide a english version. I didn't say they should. But if they want to appeal to an audience of non-Japanese speakers such as myself, it is necessary. Or they can ignore me. I don't care. >No 3 cents is not huge. $60m is. Pretty small, really, for such a global enterprise. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 00:00:45 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Message-ID: <688449.13240.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hmm,   My issue is with expanding the scope to "doing good works" as opposed to creating an open forum for sound expressions of ideas for the governance of the Internet. --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: From: Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael Gurstein" , "Ian Peter" Cc: "'Eric Dierker'" , "'Sylvia Caras'" , "'Ginger Paque'" , "Milton L Mueller" , "Jeanette Hofmann" Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 1:27 AM Michael and all,   Aptly and rightly ask?  Perhaps there will be an answer from our fellow user and "Dotcommoner", Eric. ??  My guess is however, that the "We" is ALL users and future users.  I hope that my guess was what Eric meant by "We".   This said and ask, let me further digress on Eric's other utterances. I and all of our members amongst many others, perhaps a majority believe that international "do gooders" are not only welcome, but very beneficial as they, myself included, seek to do good works for all and by all.  To seek otherwise is of course inherently wrong headed and fundamentally harmful as well as far less then useful or helpful.  The key is what is or defines "Good works" and what only benifits a few. Michael Gurstein wrote: >  Who is "we"...M > >      -----Original Message----- >      From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] >      Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:04 AM >      To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Sylvia >      Caras'; 'Ginger Paque' >      Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > >        Very insghtful (incitefull) and humrous.  But yes governance is        only for those who are governed.  I do not think we call this        freedomance. We do not and should not create governing principles        or principals and then go out and see who we can catch in our        net. Somehow international do gooders constantly interlope into        what is basically intended as a system of setting up norms and        co-opt them into international aid programs in order to garner        publicity and further other agendas.  To be governed is to be        restricted. We do not need to restrict activity of extremely poor        people. We need to govern activity of those in power.        --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Michael Gurstein wrote:             From: Michael Gurstein             Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start             To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Eric Dierker'"             , "'Sylvia Caras'"             , "'Ginger Paque'"                         Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:50 AM             Hmmm... so governance is just for the governors...             Interesting concept... Not sure what you do with the             notions of democracy and citizenship built up over the             last 1000 years or so, but maybe governance of the             Internet is a special case...M                  -----Original Message-----                  From: Eric Dierker                  [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net]                  Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:35 AM                  To: Sylvia Caras; governance at lists.cpsr.org;                  Ginger Paque                  Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org                  Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question                  6 start                  Yes indeed.  Leave the below out of any                  suggestions.  Great for goals and                  cheerleading but very destructive to building                  foundations.  People must get the fact that                  caring for the needy via the internet is not                  grassroots, it is empathy, not work limiting                  accomodation. At best teh below approach will                  lead us to form general policy based on                  isolated non-representative experience and at                  norm lead us moribound into more worry about                  an individual or inclusiveness than results.                  "Governance" is not the idea of developing,                  it is the idea of working with what we have,                  or what comes into it, not what will make us                  feel good. In short - you do not form a                  governance model and then say "Now let us go                  out and find folks to govern".  Townhall                  meeting concepts are for pr and politics.                  --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Ginger Paque                   wrote:                       Sylvia and Erik, thanks for your                       comments.                       Erik, did you have any specific                       requests, or just positive feedback                       for Jeremy's addition? If there was                       a change implied, I did not get it.                       And here we include for example,                       Indigenous peoples worldwide,                       people with disabilities, rural                       people and particularly those who                       are the poorest of the poor and                       often landless or migrants, those                       concerned with promoting peer to                       peer and open access governance                       structures built on an electronic                       platform, those looking to                       alternative modes of Internet                       governance as ways of responding to                       specific localized opportunities                       and limitations, and those working                       as practitioners and activists in                       implementing the Internet as a                       primary resource in support of                       broad based economic and social                       development.             -----Inline Attachment Follows-----             ____________________________________________________________             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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -    Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 00:02:09 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Message-ID: <508181.19607.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> The funding model is sound. The methods for determining participants and panelists is suspect. --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start To: "Jeanette Hofmann" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 5:37 AM Hello Jeanette Hofmann and All, The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of discussing this with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs work when this idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF Secretariat. Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for Panelists ( and for participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the actual physical, direct outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for organizing the IGF.  But $ 700,000 or even a million or a little more is minuscule if we pause for a while to assess and understand the true cost of the IGF. Calcuate the time spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in deliberations in preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings, in email communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is spent traveling to attending the IGF.  A hundered hours spent by everyone of the 1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and attending the IGF.   For these 1000 participants alone, it is (100+150) X 1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per hour, considering the profiles and positions of most participants,  which amounts to $ 12.5 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the cost of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host team, and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum. Add to that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF Secretariat. Add to the that the cost of sending and receiving email messages like this, and the invisible cost of online space for discussing IGF issues. For most participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ?  of an event such as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is that if we assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF meeting, he would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million every year. A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a visible and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the diversity of participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000 (unconditional) fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider even more liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses that would double or triple the quality of the IGF. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Hi, the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries. The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we phrase such matters. jeanette Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Hello Coordinators, As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote:    On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:        "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what        improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods,        functioning and processes?"        Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with        near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that        the review  should focus on addressing the issue of more        inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not        needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the        search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard        and developing country voices through, but not limited to,        remote participation.        And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,        people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those        who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants,        those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access        governance structures built on an electronic platform, those        looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of        responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations,        and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing        the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based        economic and social development.    This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of    structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable    in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental    summit.  For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate    for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as    an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather,    perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet    governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most    work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and    regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more    of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.    Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new    structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce    more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.     In the past various such innovations have been considered -    including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable    discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through    with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder    representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never    is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the    long term it it does not prove its value to the international    community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding    statements on Internet public policy issues.    --    JEREMY MALCOLM    Project Coordinator    CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE    for Asia Pacific and the Middle East        Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM    7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg    TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia    Tel: +60 3 7726 1599    Mob: +60 12 282 5895    Fax: +60 3 7726 8599    www.consumersinternational.org    Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global    campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations    in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer    movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more    information, visit www.consumersinternational.org    .    ____________________________________________________________    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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 01:16:33 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet Message-ID: <875618.43845.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Roland,   Seems that your original premise makes good general sense.  But trying to make the case that the names and numbers and addresses people use for the purpose of accessing information is irrelevant is over the top. But thanks for making a strong point. --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Roland Perry wrote: From: Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 8:34 PM In message <4A58E901.5AC1E9DE at ix.netcom.com>, at 12:33:21 on Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > Privacy protection is not about hiding, it is about protecting from > abuse. I don't call legitimate reasons to want to identify who I'm doing business with an "abuse". > The ALAC is not about openess and transparency.  As such it in it's > current form cannot reasonably represent users. So you think the ALAC's actions are adversely affecting average users? Can you give some examples. >> What kinds of harm do you think they are conspiring to inflict upon the >> ordinary user - this is exactly the question I think George was asking >> so I'm very interested in your answer. > > There are not ordinary users per se. Who are "they"? > Again there are no "Average Internet users". Of course there are. All those people sat at home on the end of cable modems, DSL and even dial-up. > All users, registrants or non-registrants have a reasonable expectation that wherever some potential registrant buys their Domain Name, that that Registrar is operating in an honest and above board manner.  Such has proven too many times to not be the case.  Ergo, ALL users are damaged accordingly. How does it damage the average user, if a registrant suffers a problem with their registry? (Apart from those time the registry accepts incorrect WHOIS information). >> In a world of Web2.0, I can't see an easy way for people using Google's >> platform to influence the tld that Google uses. > > WEB2.0 is DOA at present, and unlikely to be revived despite the > rhetoric to the contrary. Forget the web2.0 aspects then, what about people using the web1.0 bits of Google? > Why should there be a restriction of new TLD's? But you seem to want better assurance that "Registrars [are] operating in an honest and above board manner.  Such has proven too many times to not be the case." Would that mysteriously fix itself if anyone could run a tld registry? >> So when a Japanese site is only >> available at a Japanese url, that prevents those of us without a >> Japanese keyboard from accessing it. But as I don't speak Japanese, I'm >> somewhat in their hands already if I want to access the site (ie they >> have to provide an English version too). > > They?  Who is they exactly?  Perhaps you mean the Japanese IDN > domain holder? Yes, that's "them". > If so, why should they be required to provide a english version. I didn't say they should. But if they want to appeal to an audience of non-Japanese speakers such as myself, it is necessary. Or they can ignore me. I don't care. > No 3 cents is not huge.  $60m is. Pretty small, really, for such a global enterprise. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 01:32:51 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:32:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet Message-ID: <883801.78402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> If I am reading this right, or right side up, your model suggests that producers dictate the market.  I think you may have a case with TV and Internet marketing.  But the fact those industries are so huge makes clear that the Consumer dotcommoner is what drives the net. The geniuses at the engineering and technical industries supply a need. The consumers do not fill a need created in some lab. Your model that an entire industry is driven by the "top" end suppliers as opposed to "bottom" end users is pure communism which is a theory and not a reality. --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Re: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 1:24 PM George, Let’s categorize a few baseline definitions for “Average Internet User” first, Then let’s define “Hurt” … the User, as Icann’s actions effect them directly, and as those action affect the interactive-relationship between them, and how the action affects the system holistically (systemics). Lets keep it simple (K.I.S.S.). At the starting level there are those who simply access the internet in various ways to; Surf, Shop, & Message (Via: Home computer, Work Computer, Internet Café, Handi’s (Cell Device, etc…). In an asymmetric scenario they are at the receiving end of the Push. These are the ‘Common Users’ of the Net (i.e.: Net-Tourist). The next level is the ‘Commercial Service Users’, these Folks use commercial services like: eBay, Skype, Craigslist, Wordpress, Paypal (i.e.: They are commerce account holders) etc.  They are the Street Pushers, in an asymmetric scenario. Next level is the ‘Hosting Service Users’, they typically subscribe to a Hosting provider, but do not run their    own Web Server \ Name Server, they may own a small number of Domains (1-20) and actually have hosted sites for  a few of those, the rest are inventory (i.e.: SoHo’s). They are the SoHo Pushers, in an asymmetric scenario (i.e.: Professional Services). Up a level too ‘Self Hosted Users’ they run their own in-house Sever and typically own (1-50) Domains for a variety of uses (email, content, voip. foip, porting addresses, etc..)  They range from small to medium business companies, and depend on Local and National commerce (sales) , not International business. >From this we enter the realm of the ‘SoHo Domainers’, they hold a number of Domains from One too One Hundred (50-100) . These Domains are: Parked, Forwarded, & held as Speculative Inventory for a possible future Startup. SoHo Domineers’ use commercial drop services of: SnapNames, Pool, NameJet, Go Daddy, & Moniker  etc… to acquire domains and sell Domains. The SoHo Domainers’ budget is pretty much regulated by the annual size of their wallet, and typically won’t want to spend more than $100 for a Domain, but may spend upward to $400. Depends upon what they are trying to accomplish, and the personal funds available. Next up, ‘Domain Traders’ these guys buy and sell domains for a living, the Domain is a inventory asset, it is usually: Parked for Sale or Listed with the Commercial Drop Services. Domain Traders’ speculate heavily on new TDLs for the cash cow Domain Names (i.e.: sex(dot)anything). A Domain Traders’ portfolio is anywhere from 100 – 1000 Domains in investment inventory. They are not Registers, and frequent Auctions to Buy, Sell and Trade. The upper end may spend up to 10K depending on their margin, for a Domain. The ‘Domain Brokers’  hits the upper limit of Domain inventory investment, these portfolios are in excess of thousands (1000+), the Players are typically ICANN sanctioned Domain Registers backed by Investment Capital funds. Moniker, Go Daddy, Momentous, T.R.A.F.F.I.C., AfterMarket, Overseer etc…The Domain Brokers host & fuel the Domain market with Live Auctions and Events, and keep their ball rolling. A last there are the Registrars and Registries, their mediacy of DNS Names allows them access to nearly an infinite amount of Domain Names, of which the inventory is related to the creativeness of the Original Registrant (whatever(dot)anything). So let’s recap the User Groups: Common Users (Net-Tourist), Commercial Service Users (non-hosting), Hosting Service Users (1-20 Domains), Self Hosted Users (1-50 Domains),  SoHo Domainers (50-100 Domains), Domain Traders (100-1000 Domains), Domain Brokers (1000+ Domains), & Registrars and Registries (infinite). ... -- Now let’s define ‘Hurt’ … the Internet User, in terms of: Social, Economic, Developmental, & Geo Political effects. Socially, how does it affect the Groups. Economically, how does it affect the Groups. Developmentally, how does it affect the Groups. Geo Politically, how does it affect the Groups. ----- I’ll break these up into individual posts [Social, Economic, Developmental, & Geo Political effects], too lessen the length of this post: How do ICANN's actions hurt Socially, How do ICANN's actions hurt Economically, How do ICANN's actions hurt Developmentally, How do ICANN's actions hurt Geo Politically. -- Sorry, I did not intent to make your question into a Thesis. ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 02:06:37 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:36:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <508181.19607.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <508181.19607.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger, Q6 is assigned to me and Vanda. I am beginning to work on a statement, and to make sure that all comments are reviewed word by word, I have copied the thread in editable form on a Social Text Wiki page ( I am not a wiki expert, just trying ) It is not for me to suggest what collaborative platforms IGC may use, but for this little task, to ensure that a fair summary arises, and to make it easy for the participants to see all comments in one single page without the need for opening and reading email messages one by one, I have started on this page. Will copy and bring the text in progress to this thread for further comments. For now, I am inviting Vanda and Ginger Paque to the workshop which is accessible for all participants. http://www1.socialtext.net/in-com/index.cgi?igc_statement_on_igf_review_q6 Shiva. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > The funding model is sound. The methods for determining participants and > panelists is suspect. > > --- On *Sat, 7/11/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy *wrote: > > > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > To: "Jeanette Hofmann" > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 5:37 AM > > Hello Jeanette Hofmann and All, > > The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of discussing > this with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs work when > this idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF > Secretariat. > > Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for Panelists ( and for > participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the actual physical, direct > outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for organizing the IGF. But $ > 700,000 or even a million or a little more is minuscule if we pause for a > while to assess and understand the true cost of the IGF. Calcuate the time > spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in deliberations in > preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings, in email > communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is spent > traveling to attending the IGF. A hundered hours spent by everyone of the > 1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and > attending the IGF. For these 1000 participants alone, it is (100+150) X > 1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per hour, > considering the profiles and positions of most participants, which amounts > to $ 12.5 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the cost > of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF > work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host > team, and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum. > Add to that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF > Secretariat. Add to the that the cost of sending and receiving email > messages like this, and the invisible cost of online space for discussing > IGF issues. > > For most participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ? of an > event such as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is > that if we assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF > meeting, he would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million > every year. > > A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a visible > and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the diversity of > participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000 (unconditional) > fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider even more > liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses that > would double or triple the quality of the IGF. > > Thank you > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it >> important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent >> of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active >> participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries. >> >> The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not >> responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we >> phrase such matters. >> >> jeanette >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >>> Hello Coordinators, >>> >>> As part of point 6, we may have to suggest to IGF to work on ways of >>> getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support ( as >>> opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied >>> conditions ) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a >>> fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel >>> speakers, team organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class >>> airfare for distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in >>> excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two >>> recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the >>> panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to >>> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $ >>> 700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded NGOs >>> and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable >>> the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are >>> not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those participants who >>> have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in >>> traveling to the IGF. >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>> >>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> jeremy at ciroap.org>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what >>> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, >>> functioning and processes?" >>> >>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that >>> the review should focus on addressing the issue of more >>> inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not >>> needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the >>> search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard >>> and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >>> remote participation. >>> >>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, >>> people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those >>> who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, >>> those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access >>> governance structures built on an electronic platform, those >>> looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of >>> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, >>> and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing >>> the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based >>> economic and social development. >>> >>> >>> >>> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of >>> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable >>> in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental >>> summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate >>> for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as >>> an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, >>> perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet >>> governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most >>> work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and >>> regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more >>> of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. >>> >>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce >>> more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. >>> In the past various such innovations have been considered - >>> including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable >>> discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through >>> with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder >>> representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never >>> is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the >>> long term it it does not prove its value to the international >>> community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding >>> statements on Internet public policy issues. >>> >>> -- JEREMY MALCOLM >>> Project Coordinator >>> CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE >>> for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM >>> 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg >>> TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> Mob: +60 12 282 5895 >>> Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 >>> www.consumersinternational.org >>> >>> >>> Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global >>> campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations >>> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer >>> movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more >>> information, visit www.consumersinternational.org >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org>> 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 >>> >>> >>> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jul 12 06:27:27 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:27:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <4A59152B.A3DD0B84@ix.netcom.com> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com> <4A58E4EB.7B1E52E6@ix.netcom.com> <4A59152B.A3DD0B84@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message <4A59152B.A3DD0B84 at ix.netcom.com>, at 15:41:48 on Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >Let me "Try" to parse this so that even a litarary midget can understand. Is that an insult to anyone in particular? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jul 12 08:06:16 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:06:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, trying again. See below. Best, Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM To: 'Ginger Paque' Cc: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Importance: High Hi Ginger Here my feedback "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?" Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, IGF shall support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand to strength movements already existents in some regions and to help others to start. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and the support of IGF - shall be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years. Best to all Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM To: Vanda Scartezini Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to Question 6, stating your point? Vanda Scartezini wrote: > Dear all > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is to define > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin America) > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion, > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/ > communities. > I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but it needs to help the > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage IGF > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF > Best to all, > Vanda Scartezini > POLO Consultores Associados > & IT Trend > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Ginger > Paque' > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start > discussion on that question. > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes?" > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, > but not limited to, remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad > based economic and social development. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 08:41:33 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:11:33 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date Message-ID: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it today, adding missing parts and working on text. I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest we get consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. Thanks. 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? Text from Shiva: IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be relevant: (from the meeting transcript) IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the idea of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with this or in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not comfort them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions are taken by government, by businesses in complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not reflect the mood of the IGF. So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and report on the mood of IGF. Thank you. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as appropriate. *Membership of the MAG* • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. • In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. *Role and Structure of the MAG* With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. *Special Advisors and Chair* The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase. And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through difficult formative times 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. 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 need 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. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is competitive and convenient. [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing] Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help others to start. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of IGF – will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years. [Text to be re-written by Shiva] suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. 7. Do you have any other comments? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 08:54:46 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:24:46 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start Vanda's section edited In-Reply-To: References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A59DD16.5060405@gmail.com> [Text proposed by Vanda, edited] Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help others to start. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the annual IGF meeting. Vanda Scartezini wrote: > > Hi Ginger, trying again. See below. > > Best, > > */Vanda Scartezini/* > > */POLO Consultores Associados/* > > */& IT Trend/* > > */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/* > > */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./* > > */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/* > > */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*// > > *From:* Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] > *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM > *To:* 'Ginger Paque' > *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > *Importance:* High > > Hi Ginger > > Here my feedback > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes?" > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term > and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and > policies, IGF shall support regional forums around the world, using > its mission and brand to strength movements already existents in some > regions and to help others to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and the > support of IGF – shall be a powerful tool to help the implementation, > in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these > years. > > Best to all > > */Vanda Scartezini/* > > */POLO Consultores Associados/* > > */& IT Trend/* > > */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/* > > */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./* > > */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/* > > */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*// > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM > To: Vanda Scartezini > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > > Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to > > Question 6, stating your point? > > Vanda Scartezini wrote: > > > Dear all > > > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is > to define > > > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin > America) > > > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get > > > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion, > > > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/ > > > communities. > > > I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the > > > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but it needs to help the > > > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and > since > > > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to > encourage IGF > > > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF > > > Best to all, > > > Vanda Scartezini > > > POLO Consultores Associados > > > & IT Trend > > > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 > > > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. > > > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 > > > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM > > > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; > 'Ginger > > > Paque' > > > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > > > > > > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can > > > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of > > > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start > > > discussion on that question. > > > > > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > > > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > > > processes?" > > > > > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > > > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > > > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > > > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of > > > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster > more > > > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, > > > but not limited to, remote participation. > > > > > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people > > > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > > > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned > with > > > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built > on an > > > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > > > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities > and > > > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > > > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad > > > based economic and social development. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 09:06:21 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:36:21 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion has taken place. So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely what it was designed to be. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 09:15:30 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:45:30 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 09:29:33 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:59:33 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q6 for review In-Reply-To: <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A59E53D.2030704@gmail.com> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is competitive and convenient. [Vanda, edited] Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help others to start. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the annual IGF meeting. [Shiva, edited] The IGC suggests that the multistakeholder community and the IGF establish a program to offer improved funding to extend travel support for panelists. Such funds would enable IGF main sessions and workshops to bring in more diverse opinions to the IGF including experts who have particular expertise, but are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 09:34:37 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:04:37 -0430 Subject: [governance] Apology: Trying for discussion and consensus, not Spam In-Reply-To: <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A59E66D.8010104@gmail.com> I sincerely apologize for the excess of email on the IGC questionnaire response. I am trying to write a consensus statement, and this is my way of trying to involve the whole list in the process while accelerating the pace due to time constraints, rather than just presenting a final statement for approval. I beg your patience, and ask that when you read emails, just review the latest version of each question. I hope you will opine. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jul 12 09:53:50 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:53:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review In-Reply-To: <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> On 12/07/2009, at 9:06 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it > in the Tunis Agenda? > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss > public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance > in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > stability and development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion has taken place. So much > so that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely what it > was designed to be. I strongly disagree and couldn't support the statement with this in it. I know we don't want to be too negative, but this is simply not so. Can you read paragraphs (c), (g), (i) and (k) of the mandate in particular and seriously argue that they have been fulfilled by our "all talk" IGF? > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue. We should add something like "There is more work to be done on addressing certain of the other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that call for it to go beyond discussion into action - for example, in effectively interfacing with other international Internet governance institutions (para 72(b) and (c)), in assessing their compliance with the WSIS process criteria (para 72(i)), and in formulating recommendations to them in appropriate cases (para 72(g))." -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 10:30:20 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:00:20 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review In-Reply-To: <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you? 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely what it was designed to be. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. However, there is more work to be done on addressing certain of the other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that call for it to go beyond discussion into action - for example, in effectively interfacing with other international Internet governance institutions (para 72(b) and (c)), in assessing their compliance with the WSIS process criteria (para 72(i)), and in formulating recommendations to them in appropriate cases (para 72(g)). The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 12/07/2009, at 9:06 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> >> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss >> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance >> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >> stability and development of the Internet. >> >> There can be no doubt that this discussion has taken place. So much >> so that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely what it >> was designed to be. > > I strongly disagree and couldn't support the statement with this in > it. I know we don't want to be too negative, but this is simply not > so. Can you read paragraphs (c), (g), (i) and (k) of the mandate in > particular and seriously argue that they have been fulfilled by our > "all talk" IGF? > >> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that >> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue. > > We should add something like "There is more work to be done on > addressing certain of the other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that > call for it to go beyond discussion into action - for example, in > effectively interfacing with other international Internet governance > institutions (para 72(b) and (c)), in assessing their compliance with > the WSIS process criteria (para 72(i)), and in formulating > recommendations to them in appropriate cases (para 72(g))." > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jul 12 10:36:05 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:36:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review In-Reply-To: <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you? What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more than "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-) -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 10:54:13 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:24:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review In-Reply-To: References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A59F915.3040207@gmail.com> Jeremy: So, lose those seven words... Done. Here is the current Q1: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. However, there is more work to be done on addressing certain of the other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that call for it to go beyond discussion into action - for example, in effectively interfacing with other international Internet governance institutions (para 72(b) and (c)), in assessing their compliance with the WSIS process criteria (para 72(i)), and in formulating recommendations to them in appropriate cases (para 72(g)). The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you? > > What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", > because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more than > "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-) > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 11:21:33 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:51:33 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC statement/questionnaire Q3 Message-ID: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com> Shiva is actively working on Q3. I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process in the impact. I think there is much more collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, and far less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in particular, due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together. We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire for ideas as well: *3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?* You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover impact, and a lot of this would be at a personal level, which is not directly covered by the way that question is posed. Where individuals are impacted or have learnt, eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups. But to get meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to ask a few questions along the lines of “has you involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? “ “has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted your work” , “has multistakeholder involvement changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues” etc. These sort of questions would assist in getting a fuller understanding of what the impact might have been. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 12:38:27 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review Message-ID: <646416.75493.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> That is a very keen observation.   What a funny expression "all talk".  Do we likewise have "all reading" or "all exchanging ideas".  I suppose it has something to do with computer engineering trying to prove themselves as scientific and distancing themselves from the "art" of communication. --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: From: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 1:53 PM On 12/07/2009, at 9:06 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion has taken place. So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”—precisely what it was designed to be. I strongly disagree and couldn't support the statement with this in it.  I know we don't want to be too negative, but this is simply not so.  Can you read paragraphs (c), (g), (i) and (k) of the mandate in particular and seriously argue that they have been fulfilled by our "all talk" IGF? > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue. We should add something like "There is more work to be done on addressing certain of the other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that call for it to go beyond discussion into action - for example, in effectively interfacing with other international Internet governance institutions (para 72(b) and (c)), in assessing their compliance with the WSIS process criteria (para 72(i)), and in formulating recommendations to them in appropriate cases (para 72(g))." --JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 12:50:14 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review Message-ID: <912885.1307.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Wow. Degrees, credentials, Koran, Bible, Buddha and the Art of War and Jabborwocky. I am full of it. But I ain't never read a sentence quite this unique;   "Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard."   Very well done if that is what you are after.  I ponder though if the disadvantaged or ESL amoung us are being included with such language. Seems almost like we are saying we do want them involved but acting very differently. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jul 12 12:52:17 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:22:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5A14C1.8040906@itforchange.net> Ginger, I continue to be constrained in my participation by several factors that have fallen into a rare confluence :). My apologies therefore. Let me first speak about parts that are not acceptable to me at all. And I am sure this will not be accepted by many others. I do agree that for some unclear reasons the participation from IGC members in the present exercise is quite low, and I am afraid that with this level of participation it may even get difficult to send out a statement in IGCs name. So I request some solid last minute activity on the list. >1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? >The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar >to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF >should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since >the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society >groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers >its assistance to the IGF in this regard When 'mandate set out in Tunis Agenda' for the IGF is spoken of it basically means para 72 of TA. The above response does not at all deal with the mandate laid out in para 72. National and regional processes are spoken of only in para 80, and mentioned generally, not specifically in relation to the IGF. I must also observe that the draft statement seems at many places too much focussed on regional and national processes. IGF was basically brought into existence because of vacuum at global levels on IG issues in the background of the fact that a lot of very central IG issues are global, and require global resolution. This fact should not be lost sight of. All of IG related TA before para 72 which gives us clues to this background and imperative for the IGF and para 72 itself which lays out its mandate clearly have this basic global role in mind. I do clearly see the role and necessity for corresponding regional and national processes but the central global role of the IGF, and its key imperatives, remain central when we are reviewing the IGF. Too much talk of regional etc processes is distractive to the basic issues. If agreeable to others I can try to propose some text on question 1. Also on question 6 IGC has often proposed new working methods and structures - WGS on specific issues, inter-sessional work etc. We can look up past statements. parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it > today, adding missing parts and working on text. > > I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little > time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later > today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest > we get consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post > agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. > Thanks. > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear > of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, > IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. > IGC offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard > > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness > and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to > access the content and applications of their choice. This is in > keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and > relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern > the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the > IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that > end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote > Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP > at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and > facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages > for this 4th meeting. > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? > Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > > Text from Shiva: > > IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of > Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity > involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory > pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an > opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process > of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of > consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. > > As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making > process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at > the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting > may be relevant: > > (from the meeting transcript) > IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. > But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. > These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days > deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which > session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder > could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become > some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document > for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer > to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the > idea > of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with > this or > in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not > comfort > them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an > idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions > are taken by government, by businesses in > complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not > reflect > the mood of the IGF. > So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF > Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and > report on > the mood of IGF. Thank you. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the > Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will > like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full > term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official > purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of > the IGF. > > MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to > making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the > new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We > are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open > and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, > normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do > understand that there can be some circumstances that require closed > discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be > listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By the same > rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face meetings of > the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a > closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary > of discussions provided, as appropriate. > > *Membership of the MAG* > > • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the > required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, > but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the > present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG > members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. > • In the interest of transparency and understanding the > responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG > we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group > that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG > should be clearly established, and made open along with due > justifications. > • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is > necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global > governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should > continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > • Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate > processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate > that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even > a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that > particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of > selection, especially in the case of civil society and business > sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority > exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a > completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection > processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, > special interest groups. > > *Role and Structure of the MAG* > > With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it > will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying > out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further > improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG > must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. > These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more > than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its > mandate. > • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has > any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. > For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving > recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able > to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can > cohere in the UN Secretary General. > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We > suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would > also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and > prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum > beyond 2010. > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, > which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a > need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF > Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible > for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided > with resources needed to perform its role effectively. > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF > annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > *Special Advisors and Chair* > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > should be kept within a reasonable limit. > We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN > Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a > deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding > logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will > like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the > two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over > to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country > deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian > government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but > we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase. > And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present > Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend > the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through > difficult formative times > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > 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 need 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. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster > more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices > through, but not limited to, remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned > with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures > built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of > Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and > activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in > support of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in > 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. > For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the > "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an > isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, > perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet > governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work > and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional > fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a > capstone for the work done elsewhere. > > > Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex > decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with > few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular > sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options > make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should > be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites > should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is > competitive and convenient. > > [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing] > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term > and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and > policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, > using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing > in some regions and to help others to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of IGF – will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, > in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these > years. > > [Text to be re-written by Shiva] > suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to > extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from > a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for > panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend > comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, > team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare > for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in > excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two > recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of > the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are > required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find > between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, > Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from > the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse > opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF > participants. It would also help those participants who have a keen > interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to > the IGF. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce > more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In > the past various such innovations have been considered - including > speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but > always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due > to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may > be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF > as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value > to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the > production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 12 13:04:02 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date Message-ID: <959317.73019.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Have solice my friend,   Your work is admirable. Many/most do not add when they agree. We like to say "no news is good news". When you are so busy remember if you and your contribution were not important you would not be busy. --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Cc: "Ian Peter" , "William Drake" , "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" , "Vanda Scartezini" , "Sylvia Caras" , "Jeanette Hofmann" , "Michael Gurstein" , "Garth Graham" Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 4:52 PM Ginger, I continue to be constrained in my participation by several factors that have fallen into a rare confluence :). My apologies therefore. Let me first speak  about  parts that are not acceptable to me at all. And I am sure this will not be accepted by many others. I do agree that for some unclear reasons the participation from IGC members in the present exercise is quite low, and I am afraid that with this level  of  participation  it may even get difficult to send out a statement in IGCs name. So I request some solid last minute activity on the list. >1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? >The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar >to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF >should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since >the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society >groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers >its assistance to the IGF in this regard When 'mandate set out in Tunis Agenda' for the IGF is spoken of  it basically means  para  72 of TA.  The above response does not  at all deal with  the mandate laid out in para  72. National and regional processes are spoken of  only in para 80, and mentioned generally, not specifically in relation to the IGF. I must also observe that the draft statement seems at many places too much focussed on regional and national processes. IGF was basically brought into existence because of vacuum at global levels on IG issues in the background of the fact that a lot of very central IG issues are global, and require global resolution. This fact should not be lost sight of. All of IG related TA before para 72 which gives us clues to this background and imperative for the IGF and para 72 itself which lays out its mandate clearly have this basic global role in mind. I do clearly see the role and necessity for corresponding regional and national processes but the central global role of the IGF, and its key imperatives, remain central when we are reviewing the IGF. Too much talk of regional etc processes is distractive to the basic issues. If agreeable to others I can try to propose some text on question 1. Also on question 6 IGC has often proposed new working methods and structures - WGS on specific issues, inter-sessional work etc. We can look up past statements. parminder Ginger Paque wrote: Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it today, adding missing parts and working on text. I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest we get consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. Thanks. 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? Text from Shiva: IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be relevant: (from the meeting transcript) IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the idea of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with this or in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not comfort them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions are taken by government, by businesses in complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not reflect the mood of the IGF. So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and report on the mood of IGF. Thank you. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as appropriate. *Membership of the MAG* • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. • In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. *Role and Structure of the MAG* With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. *Special Advisors and Chair* The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase. And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through difficult formative times 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. 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 need 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. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation. And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is competitive and convenient. [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing] Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help others to start. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of IGF – will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years. [Text to be re-written by Shiva] suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in traveling to the IGF. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. 7. Do you have any other comments? ____________________________________________________________ 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 13:17:43 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:47:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello All, Here is the part I am asked to work on, which may be appended to the IGC response to Q6: The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to improve the quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a level high enough and b) The present participants of the IGF does not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, Organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the True cost of IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from Business, Governments, well funded Non Governmental and International Organization and the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable Travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well received for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a Business Trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF creates a fund large enough to have significant impact in the quality and diversity of participation. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com http://www.onewebday.org/stories On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > Hi Ginger, trying again. See below. > > Best, > > > > *Vanda Scartezini* > > *POLO Consultores Associados* > > *& IT Trend* > > *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8* > > *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.* > > *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253* > > *Mob + 5511 8181.1464*** > > > > *From:* Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] > *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM > *To:* 'Ginger Paque' > *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > *Importance:* High > > > > Hi Ginger > > Here my feedback > > > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes?" > > > > > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and > the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, IGF > shall support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand > to strength movements already existents in some regions and to help others > to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and the > support of IGF – shall be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in a > regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years. > > > > > > Best to all > > > > > > *Vanda Scartezini* > > *POLO Consultores Associados* > > *& IT Trend* > > *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8* > > *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.* > > *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253* > > *Mob + 5511 8181.1464*** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM > To: Vanda Scartezini > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > > > > Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to > > Question 6, stating your point? > > > > Vanda Scartezini wrote: > > > Dear all > > > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is to > define > > > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin > America) > > > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get > > > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion, > > > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/ > > > communities. > > > I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the > > > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but it needs to help the > > > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since > > > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage > IGF > > > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF > > > Best to all, > > > Vanda Scartezini > > > POLO Consultores Associados > > > & IT Trend > > > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 > > > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. > > > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 > > > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM > > > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; > 'Ginger > > > Paque' > > > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > > > > > > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can > > > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of > > > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start > > > discussion on that question. > > > > > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > > > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > > > processes?" > > > > > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > > > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > > > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > > > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of > > > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more > > > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, > > > but not limited to, remote participation. > > > > > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people > > > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > > > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with > > > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an > > > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > > > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > > > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > > > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad > > > based economic and social development. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 13:21:11 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:51:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q6 for review In-Reply-To: <4A59E53D.2030704@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <4A59E53D.2030704@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello All, On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would > you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review > should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More > importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could > be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely > heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote > participation. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: > > > > “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular attention* > to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, > including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed > and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* *We shall also > recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” > > > > we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with > disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the > poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to > peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those > working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a > primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, > in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, > it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet > Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in > a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the > book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, > in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and > regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a > capstone for the work done elsewhere. > > > Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex > decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with > few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular > sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options > make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should > be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites > should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is > competitive and convenient. > > > > [Vanda, edited] > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and > the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the > IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and > brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help > others to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a > regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these years to > address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional… level". This should be complemented by > more formal support for Remote Hubs to the annual IGF meeting. > > > [Shiva, edited] > The IGC suggests that the multistakeholder community and the IGF establish > a program to offer improved funding to extend travel support for panelists. > Such funds would enable IGF main sessions and workshops to bring in more > diverse opinions to the IGF including experts who have particular expertise, > but are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those > participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have > difficulty in traveling to the IGF. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures > and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible > outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various > such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated > debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from > going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder > representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - > the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it > does not prove its value to the international community by adopting > mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public > policy issues. In place of the above two paragraphs, the following text may become part of the the IGC response to Q6: The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to improve the quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a level high enough and b) The present participants of the IGF does not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, Organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the True cost of IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from Business, Governments, well funded Non Governmental and International Organization and the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable Travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well received for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a Business Trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF creates a fund large enough to have significant impact in the quality and diversity of participation. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com http://www.onewebday.org/stories -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 13:27:27 2009 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:27:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> Message-ID: > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > ... > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. > ... Is "Remote Participation" understood to include transcription and archiving? Is adding those terms redundant? " ... the use of Remote Participation, including transcription and archiving, as a tool ..." Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 14:27:36 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:57:36 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5A2B18.5020007@gmail.com> Thanks Shiva, this is considerably improved. I have edited the text slightly for readability, but otherwise left it the same. I like your concept, however, I personally question whether government representatives are missing at the IGF due to funding. I also question whether funds should be give "unconditionally" for use. Should mention be made of the funding already made available? What do others think? Best, Ginger The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation in a substantial way, to improve the quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence of some of the world's most renowned civil society opinion leaders is noticeable; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and governments are not represented on a high enough level and b) The present participants of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well-received for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant impact in the quality and diversity of participation. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello All, > > Here is the part I am asked to work on, which may be appended to the > IGC response to Q6: > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund > the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly > better to improve the quality and diversity of participation. There > are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or > non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society > opinion leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise > committed to social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen > at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a level high enough and > b) The present participants of the IGF does not represent all > participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved > and it requires various efforts, but availability of various > categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may > help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of > funds. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, Organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected > in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total > visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, > which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel > support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a > small proportion of the True cost of IGF, the quality of panels and > the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, > the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that IGF should consider > liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from > Business, Governments, well funded Non Governmental and International > Organization and the United Nations. The fund may extend > uncompromising, comfortable Travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead > participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely > invitees who are required to be well received for participation), full > and partial fellowships to a large number of participants with special > attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented > geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even > to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual > need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse > opinion to the IGF from Experts who would add further value to the > IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up > from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from > a Business Trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions > to be taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants > unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF creates a fund large > enough to have significant impact in the quality and diversity of > participation. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > http://www.onewebday.org/stories > > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Vanda Scartezini > wrote: > > Hi Ginger, trying again. See below. > > Best, > > > > */Vanda Scartezini/* > > */POLO Consultores Associados/* > > */& IT Trend/* > > */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/* > > */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./* > > */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/* > > */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*// > > > > *From:* Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br > ] > *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM > *To:* 'Ginger Paque' > *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org ' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > *Importance:* High > > > > Hi Ginger > > Here my feedback > > > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what > improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, > functioning and processes?" > > > > > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its > term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information > and policies, IGF shall support regional forums around the world, > using its mission and brand to strength movements already > existents in some regions and to help others to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and > the support of IGF – shall be a powerful tool to help the > implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion > raised during these years. > > > > > > Best to all > > > > > > */Vanda Scartezini/* > > */POLO Consultores Associados/* > > */& IT Trend/* > > */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/* > > */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./* > > */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/* > > */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*// > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com > ] > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM > To: Vanda Scartezini > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > > > > Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to > > Question 6, stating your point? > > > > Vanda Scartezini wrote: > > > Dear all > > > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal > is to define > > > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in > Latin America) > > > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order > to get > > > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several > suggestion, > > > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local > governments/ > > > communities. > > > I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the > table the > > > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but it needs to > help the > > > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, > and since > > > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to > encourage IGF > > > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF > > > Best to all, > > > Vanda Scartezini > > > POLO Consultores Associados > > > & IT Trend > > > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 > > > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. > > > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 > > > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com > ] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM > > > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org > '; 'Ginger > > > Paque' > > > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start > > > > > > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can > > > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including > all of > > > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start > > > discussion on that question. > > > > > > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what > improvements > > > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > > > processes?" > > > > > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > > > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that > the > > > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > > > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a > review of > > > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to > foster more > > > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices > through, > > > but not limited to, remote participation. > > > > > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > people > > > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > > > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those > concerned with > > > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures > built on an > > > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > > > governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and > > > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > > > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad > > > based economic and social development. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From garth.graham at telus.net Sun Jul 12 15:01:46 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:01:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> Message-ID: <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net> On 12-Jul-09, at 5:41 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little > time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version > later today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I > suggest we get consensus on substance first, and polish last. > Please post agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can > work them out. I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later updates of specific questions, to see if the substance of a previous comment I'd made is included or covered by existing wording. I don't see that it is. As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending fundamentals. And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to include it would be under any other comments. > 7. Do you have any other comments? For the future, there is a need for ongoing discussions that evolve and deepen understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance, particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance. Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition of Internet governance to something even more open. Rather than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society, “in their respective roles,” if roles and identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The IGC believes that civil society "in it's role" has a responsibility to advocate for the Internet's basic assumptions and principles as a fundamentally different view of the nature of governance. The Internet is "open" because the rules about changing its rules are open. One reason, perhaps the main reason, why IGF must continue to exist and to evolve is because the implications of those issues of "narrow and broad Internet Governance" for governance are only beginning to be understood. Capacity of collaborating agencies at any level to use the Internet for development will be improved by a deeper understanding of, and agreement on, what the Internet's existence signifies.____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 15:13:00 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:43:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals In-Reply-To: <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net> Message-ID: <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com> Garth Graham wrote: > > I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later updates > of specific questions, to see if the substance of a previous comment > I'd made is included or covered by existing wording. I don't see that > it is. As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was > pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending > fundamentals. And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the > responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to > include it would be under any other comments. Thanks Garth. Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this contains some wording that must be discussed. Garth, can you give us the definition of "Internet model" of IG that you are using, please? Thanks! Best, Ginger 7. Do you have any other comments? For the future, there is a need for ongoing discussions that evolve and deepen the understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance, particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance. Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition of Internet governance to something even more open. Rather than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society, “in their respective roles,” if roles and identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The IGC believes that civil society "in its role" has a responsibility to advocate for the Internet's basic assumptions and principles as a fundamentally different view of the nature of governance. The Internet is "open" because the rules about changing its rules are open. One reason, perhaps the main reason, why IGF must continue to exist and to evolve is because the implications of those issues of "narrow and broad Internet Governance" for governance are only beginning to be understood. Capacity of collaborating agencies at any level to use the Internet for development will be improved by a deeper understanding of, and agreement on, what the Internet's existence signifies. Garth Graham wrote: > > I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later updates > of specific questions, to see if the substance of a previous comment > I'd made is included or covered by existing wording. I don't see that > it is. As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was > pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending > fundamentals. And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the > responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to > include it would be under any other comments. > >> 7. Do you have any other comments? > > For the future, there is a need for ongoing discussions that evolve > and deepen understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet > Governance, particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance. > > Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration > and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe that > the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition of > Internet governance to something even more open. Rather than a matter > negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society, > “in their respective roles,” if roles and identities are agreed to be > self-determined then the definition must become: "The development and > application by ANYONE of shared principles, norms, rules, > decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution > and use of the Internet." > > The IGC believes that civil society "in it's role" has a > responsibility to advocate for the Internet's basic assumptions and > principles as a fundamentally different view of the nature of > governance. The Internet is "open" because the rules about changing > its rules are open. One reason, perhaps the main reason, why IGF must > continue to exist and to evolve is because the implications of those > issues of "narrow and broad Internet Governance" for governance are > only beginning to be understood. Capacity of collaborating agencies > at any level to use the Internet for development will be improved by a > deeper understanding of, and agreement on, what the Internet's > existence signifies. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 15:15:51 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:45:51 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date In-Reply-To: <4A5A14C1.8040906@itforchange.net> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A5A14C1.8040906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5A3667.9000309@gmail.com> Thanks Parminder. I appreciate your taking the time to work on this. Please do take over the text for Q1. I went through the previous IGC statements, and included them where I thought appropriate. In fact, that is where most of this text is from. However, if there is any other statement we can add, please do suggest it, Parminder, or anyone else. Best, Ginger Parminder wrote: > Ginger, > > I continue to be constrained in my participation by several factors > that have fallen into a rare confluence :). My apologies therefore. > > Let me first speak about parts that are not acceptable to me at all. > And I am sure this will not be accepted by many others. I do agree > that for some unclear reasons the participation from IGC members in > the present exercise is quite low, and I am afraid that with this > level of participation it may even get difficult to send out a > statement in IGCs name. So I request some solid last minute activity > on the list. > > >1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > >The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional… level" similar >to the IGF. It is > heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are > already taking shape. IGF >should further encourage such processes and > seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since > >the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at > national levels, IGF should use global civil society >groups and > processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging > national IGF spaces. IGC offers >its assistance to the IGF in this regard > > When 'mandate set out in Tunis Agenda' for the IGF is spoken of it > basically means para 72 of TA. The above response does not at all > deal with the mandate laid out in para 72. National and regional > processes are spoken of only in para 80, and mentioned generally, not > specifically in relation to the IGF. > > I must also observe that the draft statement seems at many places too > much focussed on regional and national processes. IGF was basically > brought into existence because of vacuum at global levels on IG issues > in the background of the fact that a lot of very central IG issues are > global, and require global resolution. This fact should not be lost > sight of. All of IG related TA before para 72 which gives us clues to > this background and imperative for the IGF and para 72 itself which > lays out its mandate clearly have this basic global role in mind. I do > clearly see the role and necessity for corresponding regional and > national processes but the central global role of the IGF, and its key > imperatives, remain central when we are reviewing the IGF. Too much > talk of regional etc processes is distractive to the basic issues. > > If agreeable to others I can try to propose some text on question 1. > > Also on question 6 IGC has often proposed new working methods and > structures - WGS on specific issues, inter-sessional work etc. We can > look up past statements. > > parminder > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it >> today, adding missing parts and working on text. >> >> I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little >> time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later >> today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest >> we get consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post >> agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. >> Thanks. >> >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> >> The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >> processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is >> heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are >> already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and >> seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since >> the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at >> national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and >> processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging >> national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard >> >> >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework will continue to >> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in >> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of >> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. >> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, >> and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality >> discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the >> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >> It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern >> the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this >> multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and >> expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at >> the IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To >> that end, we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote >> Participation Working Group as a collaborating organization for the >> RP at the IGF 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and >> facilitate the use of the RP resources from the first planning stages >> for this 4th meeting. >> >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? >> Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >> >> Text from Shiva: >> >> IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process >> of Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil >> Socity involvement in the policy making process. During the >> preparatory pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments >> had an opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory >> process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of >> consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. >> >> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making >> process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at >> the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN >> meeting may be relevant: >> >> (from the meeting transcript) >> IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. >> But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. >> These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days >> deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which >> session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder >> could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become >> some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document >> for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer >> to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the >> idea >> of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with >> this or >> in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not >> comfort >> them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an >> idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions >> are taken by government, by businesses in >> complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not >> reflect >> the mood of the IGF. >> So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF >> Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and >> report on >> the mood of IGF. Thank you. >> >> >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out >> for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory >> Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> >> At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the >> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will >> like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full >> term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official >> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect >> of the IGF. >> >> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to >> making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the >> new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We >> are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open >> and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public >> importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. >> However we do understand that there can be some circumstances that >> require closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list >> should be listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By >> the same rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face >> meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be >> dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, >> and summary of discussions provided, as appropriate. >> >> *Membership of the MAG* >> >> • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the >> required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, >> but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the >> present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG >> members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. >> • In the interest of transparency and understanding the >> responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG >> we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group >> that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG >> should be clearly established, and made open along with due >> justifications. >> • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder >> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be >> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members >> among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is >> necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global >> governance. >> • We agree that the organizations having an important role in >> Internet administration and the development of Internet-related >> technical standards should >> continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >> • Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate >> processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate >> that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even >> a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that >> particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of >> selection, especially in the case of civil society and business >> sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority >> exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a >> completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection >> processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. >> • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, >> special interest groups. >> >> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >> >> With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right >> time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, >> it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to >> perform. >> • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for >> the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with >> carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion >> that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more >> effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into >> something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all >> aspects of its mandate. >> • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups >> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >> • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG >> has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary >> General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which >> requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving >> recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be >> able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these >> tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General. >> • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also >> outline plans for the year ahead. We >> suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, >> would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis >> Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of >> continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >> • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, >> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >> drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such >> a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >> Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation >> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of >> a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >> fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We >> express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF >> Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been >> responsible for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should >> be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. >> In addition, a fund should be established to support the >> participation of people from developing and least developed countries >> in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. >> >> *Special Advisors and Chair* >> >> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria >> for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, >> as mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind >> for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors >> should be kept within a reasonable limit. >> We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder >> nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the >> UN Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a >> deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding >> logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will >> like to understand the division of work and responsibility between >> the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move >> over to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host >> country deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the >> Indian government representative has already taken over as the >> co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase. >> And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present >> Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend >> the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through >> difficult formative times >> >> >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> 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 need 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. >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the >> more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring >> it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can >> be sought. >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet >> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more >> participative and democratic. >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the >> last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF >> should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to >> carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public >> interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN >> organization gets involved in the IGF's management. >> >> >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the >> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive >> participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of >> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster >> more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices >> through, but not limited to, remote participation. >> >> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people >> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the >> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned >> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures >> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes >> of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in >> support of broad based economic and social development. >> >> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of >> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable >> in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental >> summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for >> the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an >> isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, >> perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet >> governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most >> work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and >> regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of >> a capstone for the work done elsewhere. >> >> >> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex >> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more >> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with >> few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular >> sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options >> make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should >> be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites >> should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and >> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is >> competitive and convenient. >> >> [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing] >> >> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term >> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and >> policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, >> using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing >> in some regions and to help others to start. >> >> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and >> the support of IGF – will be a powerful tool to help the >> implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion >> raised during these years. >> >> [Text to be re-written by Shiva] >> suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to >> extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support >> from a Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for >> panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend >> comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel >> speakers, team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard >> class airfare for distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for >> distances in excess of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of >> the top two recommended hotels with incidentals considering the fact >> that most of the panel speakers invited would be high profile >> individuals who are required to be well treated, This would require >> the IGF to find between $500,000 - $700,000 as unconditional support >> from Business, Government, well-funded NGOs and International >> Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would enable the IGF to >> bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who are not >> the usual IGF participants. It would also help those participants who >> have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have difficulty in >> traveling to the IGF. >> >> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce >> more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In >> the past various such innovations have been considered - including >> speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but >> always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due >> to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may >> be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF >> as a whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its >> value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the >> production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >> >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 15:28:26 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:58:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start In-Reply-To: <4A5A2B18.5020007@gmail.com> References: <4A54B05E.7070807@gmail.com> <018301c9ffe4$d0ee6300$72cb2900$@com.br> <4A54CF9E.3000202@gmail.com> <4A5A2B18.5020007@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello All, There were two paragraphs in Ginger's original text in the section pertaining to funding. The text I proposed was proposed to replace the first of those two paragraphs, not both the paragraphs. In Ginger's earlier edit Para 2 in that section talked about something different. My response to this mail is inline. On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Shiva, this is considerably improved. I have edited the text > slightly for readability, but otherwise left it the same. I like your > concept, however, I personally question whether government representatives > are missing at the IGF due to funding. I also question whether funds should > be give "unconditionally" for use. Should mention be made of the funding > already made available? What do others think? Best, Ginger > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the > IGF programs and participation in a substantial way, to improve the quality > and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in > this regard: a) The absence of some of the world's most renowned civil > society opinion leaders is noticeable; business leaders who are otherwise > committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and > governments are not represented on a high enough level [ Those Governments that already participate at the IGF may have to be urged to participate with greater involvement with a higher level delegation, and for these governments that have not had difficulty in funding their delegations so far, this point is irrelevant. But there are other Governments in the world for whom funding participation in IGF may not be a considerable priority, and in some cases even unaffordable. So there was a reference to Governmental representation in that preambulatory point. We may have to add that not all Governments are so far represented at the IGF ] > and b) The present participants of the IGF do not represent all participant > segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires > various efforts, but availability of various categories of Travel Grants for > different classes of participants may help improve participation by those > not attending the IGF for want of funds. [ here we may say, "IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective ] > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the > IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual > participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF > Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. > If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, > it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal > allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would > amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of > panels and the diversity of participation are compromised. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF > should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional > grants [ unconditional does not imply that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic condidtions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something larger. If a Network Computer Corporation offers me a Travel Grant and I happen to be a panelist in a session on Cloud Computing, I may be normally expected to present a line of argument that propagates that the Cloud Computing is very positive. I am talking about a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, International Organizations, NGOs and UN, of which even if a sizable portion happens to be from that Network Computer Corporation (fictional), I will receive a travel grant and still be free to challenge the very concept of cloud computing, if that is what I believe in. This is the unconditionality that I have implied. More often than not Civil Society is funded by Donors who sometimes make the recipient feel obliged in some way. The idea is to appeal for funds from Donors who are beyond narrow considerations. I would like to be funded by facebook for participation and still be free to challenge facebook's privacy policy, if I feel that there is something to be challenged. And would expect an entity as large as facebook to be beyond such narrow considerations as to expect me to applaud its policies as a recipient of funds ] Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, > comfortable travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel > speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to > be well-received for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large > number of participants with special attention to participants from > unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or > unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, > represented regions if there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to the > IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially > recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are > unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or > implied conditions about the positions to be taken) and may be awarded to > panelists and participants unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF > create a fund large enough to have significant impact in the quality and > diversity of participation. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> Here is the part I am asked to work on, which may be appended to the IGC >> response to Q6: >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the >> IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to >> improve the quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to >> be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of >> the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable; >> Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance >> issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a >> level high enough and b) The present participants of the IGF does not >> represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be >> improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various >> categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help >> improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the >> IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, Organizations and individual >> participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF >> Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. >> If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, >> it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal >> allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would >> amount to a small proportion of the True cost of IGF, the quality of panels >> and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the >> Internet Governance Caucus recommends that IGF should consider liberal >> budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from Business, >> Governments, well funded Non Governmental and International Organization and >> the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable Travel >> grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program >> organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well received >> for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of >> participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented >> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented >> participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >> there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in >> really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who would add further value >> to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up >> from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a >> Business Trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be >> taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It >> is recommended that the IGF creates a fund large enough to have significant >> impact in the quality and diversity of participation. >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> http://www.onewebday.org/stories >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Vanda Scartezini > vanda at uol.com.br>> wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger, trying again. See below. >> >> Best, >> >> >> */Vanda Scartezini/* >> >> */POLO Consultores Associados/* >> >> */& IT Trend/* >> >> */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/* >> >> */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./* >> >> */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/* >> >> */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*// >> >> >> *From:* Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br >> ] >> *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM >> *To:* 'Ginger Paque' >> *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org ' >> >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start >> *Importance:* High >> >> >> Hi Ginger >> >> Here my feedback >> >> >> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what >> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, >> functioning and processes?" >> >> >> >> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its >> term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information >> and policies, IGF shall support regional forums around the world, >> using its mission and brand to strength movements already >> existents in some regions and to help others to start. >> >> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and >> the support of IGF – shall be a powerful tool to help the >> implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestion >> raised during these years. >> >> >> >> Best to all >> >> >> >> */Vanda Scartezini/* >> >> */POLO Consultores Associados/* >> >> */& IT Trend/* >> >> */Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8/* >> >> */01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP./* >> >> */Fone + 55 11 3266.6253/* >> >> */Mob + 5511 8181.1464/*// >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com >> ] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM >> To: Vanda Scartezini >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start >> >> >> Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to >> >> Question 6, stating your point? >> >> >> Vanda Scartezini wrote: >> >> > Dear all >> >> > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal >> is to define >> >> > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in >> Latin America) >> >> > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order >> to get >> >> > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several >> suggestion, >> >> > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local >> governments/ >> >> > communities. >> >> > I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the >> table the >> >> > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but it needs to >> help the >> >> > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, >> and since >> >> > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to >> encourage IGF >> >> > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF >> >> > Best to all, >> >> > Vanda Scartezini >> >> > POLO Consultores Associados >> >> > & IT Trend >> >> > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 >> >> > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. >> >> > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 >> >> > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 >> >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com >> ] >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM >> >> > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org >> '; 'Ginger >> >> > Paque' >> >> > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start >> >> > >> > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can >> >> > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including >> all of >> >> > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start >> >> > discussion on that question. >> >> > >> > "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what >> improvements >> >> > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> >> > processes?" >> >> > >> > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> >> > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that >> the >> >> > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive >> >> > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a >> review of >> >> > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to >> foster more >> >> > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices >> through, >> >> > but not limited to, remote participation. >> >> > >> > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, >> people >> >> > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the >> >> > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those >> concerned with >> >> > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures >> built on an >> >> > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet >> >> > governance as ways of responding to specific localized >> opportunities and >> >> > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in >> >> > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad >> >> > based economic and social development. >> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> >> > 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 >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From garth.graham at telus.net Sun Jul 12 16:27:30 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:27:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals In-Reply-To: <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net> <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12-Jul-09, at 12:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Garth, can you give us the definition of "Internet model" of IG > that you are using, please? Yup.... "The Internet’s success is largely due to its unique model The Internet model: • Shared global ownership without central control • Collaborative engagement models (involves researchers, business, civil society, academia, governments) • Development based on open standards (which are also openly developed, with participation based on knowledge rather than formal membership) • Key principles (such as the “end-to-end principle”) • An open, bottom-up, freely accessible, public, multi-stakeholder processes for both technology and policy development " ...quoting Bill Graham, ISOC, Strategic Global Engagement http:// www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/aba-igov-20080809.pdf____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 16:28:05 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:58:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC statement/questionnaire Q3 In-Reply-To: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com> References: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello All, The following is a provisional draft in repsonse to Q3. On this response to the questions that Ginger has raised as also other inputs are to be incorporated The Internet Governance Forum, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Society participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory phase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunity to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. (The IGF process promotes faith in the functionality of the particiaptory governance process and could inspire National Governments to emulate the particiaptory process) As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. This is a "design" aspect of the IGF which may be largely preserved. At the same time it is observed that due to this status of the IGF, the policy making process of National Governments and Regional Governments have not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings together participants with different expertise from various staekholder groups from various geographic regions around the world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues to contribute to the actual policy making process .IGF could devise a system by which Session/Topic Reports could be generated to summarize the positions of stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during the IGF. Though this may not constitute to be a "recommendation" or a "formal statement" from the IGF, such Session/Topic Reports that could be released under different topic headings and could become Reference Documents that could contribute to the National / Regional policy making process. Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources from the IGF Referece Papers on the relevant issues/topics while framing proposals for a new policy / change of an existing policy related to Internet. The proposed Reference documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom of Expression to outline the overall IGF position with sub-sections on stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics such as a topic on Cloud Computing or Social Networking. Such Documents would enable the National / Regional Policy making process to compreshnsively and readily understand the "mood" of the IGF on a topic on which legislations are to be enacted. At present decisions are taken by governments and by business corporations largely in isolation of the IGF deliberations so the decision taken often do not take into consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor the solutions proposed by the IGF. The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat considers this as an action item and introduce a mechanism to throughly record all sessions by text transcripts and collated audio visual records as source records, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. The IGF Secreatriat may also proactively reach out to Governments to uge them to adopt it as a convention to call for IGF Position papers and related documents to be used as inputs in their policy making process., Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva is actively working on Q3. > > I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process in the impact. I > think there is much more collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, and > far less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in particular, due to > the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that > include business, government, academia and civil society working together. > > We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire for ideas as > well: > > *3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it > impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted > as a catalyst for change?* > You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover impact, and a lot > of this would be at a personal level, which is not directly covered by the > way that question is posed. Where individuals are impacted or have learnt, > eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups. But to get > meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to ask a few questions along the > lines of “has you involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet > governance? “ “has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other > peers that has assisted your work” , “has multistakeholder involvement > changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues” > etc. These sort of questions would assist in getting a fuller understanding > of what the impact might have been. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jul 12 16:48:49 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:48:49 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date In-Reply-To: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, My time is going to be even worse than I thought this week - like Parminder, several factors have fallen into a rare confluence. Not sure I will be able to participate further, but I do appreciate all your efforts and know from past experience how much energy is needed to try to get together a consensus statement here. So a few comments below. I may not be able to follow discussions of each question, and will personally find it easier to keep commenting on a completed draft. On 12/07/09 10:41 PM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it > today, adding missing parts and working on text. > > I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little time. > Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later today, so > please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest we get > consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post agreement / > objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. Thanks. > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC > offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard > Others have commented here. I also bear in mind Jeremy's comments. I believe we can say that broadly speaking the mandate has been fulfilled. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness > and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the > IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, > we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation > Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF > 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the > use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. I think here we might be better off just saying we believe that in general IGF has embodied the WSIS principles . Not sure how rights and principles fits in here or whether such a long expose of this issue is appropriate here > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > Text from Shiva: > > IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of > Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity > involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase > as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to > experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are > becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' > equality is largely an IGF achievement. I think this is good, but the text below IMHO is not suitable. I don't think we should say direct impact has been minimal. I think we should say that in the absence of a larger scale evaluation it would be difficult to measure direct and indirect impact. > > As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process > has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A > point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be > relevant: > > (from the meeting transcript) > IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. > But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. > These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days > deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which > session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder > could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become > some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document > for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer > to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the > idea > of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with > this or > in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not > comfort > them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an > idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions are > taken by government, by businesses in > complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not > reflect > the mood of the IGF. > So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF > Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and > report on > the mood of IGF. Thank you. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the > Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will like > to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term > "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official > purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of > the IGF. > > MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to > making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the > new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are > of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the > other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally > discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand > that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. > All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries > of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should > be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics > are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such > topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as > appropriate. > > *Membership of the MAG* > > € The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required > balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so > large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present > circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One > third of MAG members should be rotated every year. > € In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities > of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the > Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is > associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly > established, and made open along with due justifications. > € Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among > all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary > to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should > continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > € Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate > processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that > it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given > set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular > stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially > in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope > for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, > however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations > from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept > to the minimum. > € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special > interest groups. > > *Role and Structure of the MAG* > > With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will > be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > € One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out > this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision making processes to make them more effective. These are > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. > € It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > € We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has > any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. > For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' > etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the > IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN > Secretary General. > € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We > suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would > also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and > prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum > beyond 2010. > € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out > for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is > also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. > While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of > the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources > needed to perform its role effectively. > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF > annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > *Special Advisors and Chair* > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should > be kept within a reasonable limit. > We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature > of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN > Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy > chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues > for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the > division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the > present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested > new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the > Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative > has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > about the post-Hyderabad phase. > And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present > Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend > the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through > difficult formative times No problem in general with the content above but it does need a substantial edit to be relevant to current question > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > 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 need 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. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be > assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its > functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To > this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets > involved in the IGF's management. I agree with this section > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? There seem to be three suggestions below - remote participation, regional forums, and secretariat funding. I agree with inclusion of all, but also endorse Parminder's comments on emphasis on regional forums. I aLSO believe we should not be too prescriptive as regards funding. Yes we need to mention it and give examples and call for more. Beyond that it might be difficult to get agreement > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, > but not limited to, remote participation. > > And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people > with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad > based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in > 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. > For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the > "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated > face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF > should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and > engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and > for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the > work done elsewhere. > > > Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex > decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with > few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular > sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options > make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should > be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites > should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is > competitive and convenient. > > [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing] > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term > and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and > policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using > its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some > regions and to help others to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of IGF ­ will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in > a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years. > > [Text to be re-written by Shiva] > suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to > extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a > Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for > panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend > comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, > team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for > distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess > of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended > hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel > speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to > be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - > $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded > NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would > enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from > Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those > participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have > difficulty in traveling to the IGF. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past > various such innovations have been considered - including speed > dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always > the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the > reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be > palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a > whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the > international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of > non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > 7. Do you have any other comments? ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 16:52:55 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:22:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC statement/questionnaire Q3 In-Reply-To: References: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello All, The following is a more complete response to Q3: On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, The Internet Governance Caucus notices an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that > there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during WSIS, and it > could also be said that far less confrontation. It could also be said that > as IGF progresses into its fourth year there is more and more improvement on > these aspects. ( For instance, In the 2009 workshop proposals, due to the > request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that > include business, government, academia and civil society working together. - > should we say this ?) > The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed > differently to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen > that the participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the > flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn gets shared and influences the > respective stakeholder groups. To different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? , "Has > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder > process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance > issues?" etc.may elicit a positive response. > Also, the Internet Governance Forum, irrespective of its direct impact on > the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's > perceive Civil Society participation in the policy making process. During > the preparatory phase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an > opportunity to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the > IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. (The IGF process > promotes faith in the functionality of the particiaptory governance process > and could inspire National Governments to emulate the particiaptory process) > > As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not have powers to > decide, not have the powers to recommend. This is a "design" aspect of the > IGF which may be largely preserved. At the same time it is observed that due > to this status of the IGF, the policy making process of National Governments > and Regional Governments have not sufficiently paid attention to the > deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings together participants with > different expertise from various staekholder groups from various geographic > regions around the world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues to > contribute to the actual policy making process .IGF could devise a system by > which Session/Topic Reports could be generated to summarize the positions of > stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during the IGF. Though this may not > constitute to be a "recommendation" or a "formal statement" from the IGF, > such Session/Topic Reports that could be released under different topic > headings and could become Reference Documents that could contribute to the > National / Regional policy making process. > > Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources from the IGF > Referece Papers on the relevant issues/topics while framing proposals for a > new policy / change of an existing policy related to Internet. The proposed > Reference documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom of > Expression to outline the overall IGF position with sub-sections on > stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics such as a topic on Cloud > Computing or Social Networking. Such Documents would enable the National / > Regional Policy making process to compreshnsively and readily understand the > "mood" of the IGF on a topic on which legislations are to be enacted. At > present decisions are taken by governments and by business corporations > largely in isolation of the IGF deliberations so the decision taken often do > not take into consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor the solutions > proposed by the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat considers > this as an action item and introduce a mechanism to throughly record all > sessions by text transcripts and collated audio visual records as source > records, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ stakeholder > position reports on issues/sessions. The IGF Secreatriat may also > proactively reach out to Governments to uge them to adopt it as a convention > to call for IGF Position papers and related documents to be used as inputs > in their policy making process. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Shiva is actively working on Q3. >> >> I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in the level of >> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process in the impact. I >> think there is much more collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, and >> far less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in particular, due to >> the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that >> include business, government, academia and civil society working together. >> >> We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire for ideas as >> well: >> >> *3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >> acted as a catalyst for change?* >> You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover impact, and a lot >> of this would be at a personal level, which is not directly covered by the >> way that question is posed. Where individuals are impacted or have learnt, >> eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups. But to get >> meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to ask a few questions along the >> lines of “has you involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet >> governance? “ “has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other >> peers that has assisted your work” , “has multistakeholder involvement >> changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues” >> etc. These sort of questions would assist in getting a fuller understanding >> of what the impact might have been. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 17:20:10 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:20:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras Message-ID: <108AF2DF1D8E4B46BF99433A86E9354E@userPC> I may have lost the thread here so apologies in advance if this section has already been revised but here below is Siva's first suggested para with some interspersed comments. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to improve the quality and diversity of participation. I THINK THIS IS RATHER INSULTING TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING AND THE ISSUE OF "quality" OF PARTICIPATION SHOULD BE DROPPED. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a level high enough HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY OPINION LEADERS" (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE INTERNAL CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NEITHER WE NOR THE SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT BE. AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR FOLKS FROM CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR LEADERS OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES IS PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER YOUR STATEMENT. IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT THAT AND SIMILARLY WITH GOVERNMENTS. I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... M ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 17:45:22 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:15:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC statement/questionnaire Q3 In-Reply-To: References: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > The following is a more complete response to Q3: > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello All, > > ( statement further fine-tuned. Finer changes are inlaid into the following text) > > > The Internet Governance Caucus notices an improvement in the level of >> discussions between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that >> there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during WSIS, and it >> could also be said that there is far less confrontation. It could also be >> said that as IGF progresses into its fourth year there is increasing >> constructive collaboration. ( For instance, In the 2009 workshop proposals, >> due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are >> panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working >> together. - should we say this ?) > > > >> The impact of the IGF could be seen on a deeper level rather than >> superficially. If the question is posed differently to examine the impact of >> the IGF on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals >> or organizations, the participants have gained from the flow of knowledge at >> the IGF which in turn gets shared and influences the respective stakeholder >> groups and others.Variant questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF >> increased your knowledge of internet governance? , "Has your involvement led >> to meaningful contact with other peers who have assisted in your work? and >> "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or >> affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" etc.may >> elicit a positive response. > > > >> Also, the Internet Governance Forum, irrespective of its direct impact on >> the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's >> perceive Civil Society participation in the policy making process. During >> the preparatory phase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an >> opportunity to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process and >> they are becoming comfortable with the idea and process of consultation. >> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. (The IGF process >> promotes faith in the functionality of the participatory governance process >> and could inspire National Governments to emulate the participatory process) >> >> >> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not have powers to >> decide, not have the powers to recommend. This is a "design" aspect of the >> IGF which may be largely preserved. At the same time it is observed that due >> to this status of the IGF, the policy making process of National Governments >> and Regional Governments have not sufficiently paid attention to the >> deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings together participants with >> different expertise from various stakeholder groups from various geographic >> regions around the world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues but >> these valuable and meaningful deliberations have not been systematically >> channeled to contribute to the actual policy making process. IGF could >> devise a system by which Session/Topic Reports could be generated to >> summarize the positions of stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during >> the IGF. Though this may not constitute to be a "recommendation" or a >> "formal statement" from the IGF, such Session/Topic Reports could be >> released under different topic headings and could become Reference Documents >> to contribute to the National / Regional policy making process. >> >> Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources from the IGF >> Reference Papers on the relevant issues/topics while framing proposals for a >> new policy / change of an existing policy related to Internet. The proposed >> Reference documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom of >> Expression to outline the overall IGF position with sub-sections on >> stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics such as a topic on Cloud >> Computing or Social Networking. Such Documents would enable the National / >> Regional Policy making process to comprehensively and readily understand the >> "mood" of the IGF on a topic on which a certain legislation/ directive/ >> guideline is being considered. At present decisions are taken by governments >> and by business corporations largely in isolation of the IGF deliberations, >> without taking into consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor consider the >> solutions proposed by the IGF. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat considers >> this as an action item and introduce a mechanism to thoroughly record as >> audio-visuals collated with text transcripts and presentations to be >> archives as source records of each panel discussion, workshop, roundtable, >> open forum, or in any other format, in every room. In addition the >> Secretariat may also assign neutral staff with synthesing skills to prepare >> consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. The IGF >> Secretariat may also proactively reach out to Governments to urge them to >> adopt it as a convention to call for IGF Position papers and related >> documents to be used as inputs in their policy making process. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Shiva is actively working on Q3. >>> >>> I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in the level of >>> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process in the impact. I >>> think there is much more collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, and >>> far less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in particular, due to >>> the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that >>> include business, government, academia and civil society working together. >>> >>> We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire for ideas as >>> well: >>> >>> *3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >>> acted as a catalyst for change?* >>> You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover impact, and a >>> lot of this would be at a personal level, which is not directly covered by >>> the way that question is posed. Where individuals are impacted or have >>> learnt, eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups. But to get >>> meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to ask a few questions along the >>> lines of “has you involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet >>> governance? “ “has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other >>> peers that has assisted your work” , “has multistakeholder involvement >>> changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues” >>> etc. These sort of questions would assist in getting a fuller understanding >>> of what the impact might have been. >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 18:18:01 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:48:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <108AF2DF1D8E4B46BF99433A86E9354E@userPC> References: <108AF2DF1D8E4B46BF99433A86E9354E@userPC> Message-ID: Hello Michael Gurstein, On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > I may have lost the thread here so apologies in advance if this section has > already been revised but here below is Siva's first suggested para with > some > interspersed comments. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the > IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to > improve the quality and diversity of participation. > > I THINK THIS IS RATHER INSULTING TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING AND > THE ISSUE OF "quality" OF PARTICIPATION SHOULD BE DROPPED. > It is not at all implied that the quality of participation is absent. Quality of participation is referred to here as a quest for constant improvement, further improvement, I am a participant, am I insulting me ? "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation" sounds better? > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or > non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society > opinion > leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to > social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; > Governments are not represented on a level high enough > > HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY OPINION LEADERS" > (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE INTERNAL > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NEITHER WE NOR THE > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > BE. > > AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR FOLKS FROM CIVIL > SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR > LEADERS > OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES IS > PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER YOUR STATEMENT. > > IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF > NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT THAT AND SIMILARLY > WITH GOVERNMENTS. > > I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present participants constitute a complete, representative, and ultimate group ? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > M > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 20:42:40 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:42:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> Hi, -----Original Message----- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras Hello Michael Gurstein, On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation" sounds better? YES... There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a level high enough HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY OPINION LEADERS" (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE INTERNAL CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NEITHER WE NOR THE SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT BE. AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR FOLKS FROM CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR LEADERS OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES IS PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER YOUR STATEMENT. IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT THAT AND SIMILARLY WITH GOVERNMENTS. I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present participants constitute a complete, representative, and ultimate group ? NO, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE RATHER MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT THEM AND THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND. MBG Sivasubramanian Muthusamy M ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 00:27:31 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:57:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> Message-ID: Hello Michael Gurstein A quick reply and a little more later. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Hi, > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras > > Hello Michael Gurstein, > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> >> >> >> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the >> IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further >> enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation" >> sounds better? >> >> YES... > > Thanks. > >> >> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or >> non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society >> opinion >> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to >> social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; >> Governments are not represented on a level high enough >> >> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY OPINION >> LEADERS" >> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE INTERNAL >> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NEITHER WE NOR THE >> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE "RENOWNED" FOLKS >> MIGHT >> BE. >> >> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR FOLKS FROM CIVIL >> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR >> LEADERS >> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A >> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES IS >> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER YOUR STATEMENT. >> >> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE THEY'LL LIKELY COME, >> IF >> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT THAT AND >> SIMILARLY >> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >> >> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of such a > positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present participants > constitute a complete, representative, and ultimate group ? > > NO, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA SHIVA WOULD > HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point intended to bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. Looks like you are reading between the lines of what I write. > > HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE RATHER MORE USEFUL, > "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE > ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT THEM AND THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO > DO ON THE GROUND. > > Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a participant from India, I have faith in and respect for my country but I believe that in an International context I am at least a little wider than a national. I have been inspired by teachers who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths implies that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global. (Will come back this point and write more in response to what you have written a little later) Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > MBG > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > >> >> >> M >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 13 01:29:31 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:59:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals In-Reply-To: References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net> <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5AC63B.20205@itforchange.net> Garth Graham wrote: > On 12-Jul-09, at 12:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Garth, can you give us the definition of "Internet model" of IG that >> you are using, please? > > Yup.... > > "The Internet’s success is largely due to its unique model Yes, and and the failure of IG to protect public interest is also largely to its 'unique' non-working model. One must distinguish between a technology model and a governance and policy model about it. Internet is the defining paradigm of new social structures that definitionally have deep socio-political implications - FoE, privacy, equity, social justice, rights etc. These implications are of a very different nature than the issues involved in developing the basic technology model (while they are closely connected too). Free-for-all 'governance' systems in relation to these socio-political issues is called the law-of-the-jungle. And the impact of it has shown. > The Internet model: > • Shared global ownership without central control > • Collaborative engagement models (involves researchers, business, > civil society, academia, governments) > • Development based on open standards (which are also openly > developed, with participation based on knowledge rather than formal > membership) Techno-centred thinking valorising meritocracy over democracy is one of the problems here, and your description above illustrates that problem. Participation and rights based on 'knowledge' !!!! Nothing will kill democracy faster - it is very Nietzschian . > • Key principles (such as the “end-to-end principle”) The best example to show how the law-of-the-jungle is working in IG arena as Nero plays the flute of bottom-up and peership. The 'end-to-end principle' is dying in front of our eyes, daily there are transgressions on it, and soon it will be too late. The Internet we know will be gone. Only way to confront this situation is a convergent political position and action by the global community, but that can t come through your 'Internet model of govenrance', can it. Pl do tell me if it can. I am most interested in urgent resolution of this problem and will join in with any kind of action for this purpose. And if you indeed have no solution to this basic IG issue, pl stop selling this Internet model at least in areas of socio-political significance, because it does a lot of harm to devleping appropriate govenracne structures for the Internet. I do think the Internet has changed (and will further change) the institutions and structures of governance as it changes every other institution/ structure. However, the change is not such a complete make-over to call it an Internet model of governance. Internet provided new models of participation and decision making, deepening democracy, can take us to new levels of 'public transparency' etc.... however, this all is not what you seem to think is the emerging Internet-influenced new model of governance, and thus I am completely against your 'Internet model of governance'. > • An open, bottom-up, freely accessible, public, multi-stakeholder > processes for both technology and policy development " > > ...quoting Bill Graham, ISOC, Strategic Global Engagement > http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/aba-igov-20080809.pdf____________________________________________________________ > > 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Jul 13 02:47:15 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:47:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies generally. As such, the text below is a total non sequitur that will leave other parties wondering whether the IGC no longer understands the negotiations it has participated in and the positions it has advocated for the past seven years. I oppose including such language. It would be preferable to build off of one of the relevant statements on the matter that were laboriously negotiated and approved back when more people were participating, but unfortunately we don't have a complete archive and I don't have everything saved anymore. However, I do see at least one text online that could be adapted, from Feb. 2008, www.igcaucus.org/node/8 [The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.] We could just delete "To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad" and suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis mandate. Could also reference and support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative as a building block for such an effort. If you want to re-pitch a rights framework, it would be better to do so in under, "7. Do you have any other comments?" In that context, it might also be good to cite examples that pertain to global Internet governance, rather than national policy (or alternatively, to contend that relevant issues of national policy like universal access should be subjects of GIG, although then presumably we'd have to say how). Best, Bill On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives > of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 > December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the > Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to > build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented > Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and > share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities > and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their > sustainable development and improving their quality of life, > premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United > Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights. > > A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human > Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and > principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a > minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation > of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to > emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in > Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of > individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. > This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion > of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Jul 13 03:01:45 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:01:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals In-Reply-To: <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <994B631F-10C2-441B-8BC9-2B837D08DF1E@telus.net> <4A5A35BC.7020003@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0A507559-F8FB-4AD9-B310-9DA1F8151933@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi, On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Garth Graham wrote: >> >> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later >> updates of specific questions, to see if the substance of a >> previous comment I'd made is included or covered by existing >> wording. I don't see that it is. >> As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was >> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending >> fundamentals. And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the >> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to >> include it would be under any other comments. > Thanks Garth. > Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this > contains some wording that must be discussed. I'm a bit confused by the process we are following here. This text was dropped in the June discussion after some of us pointed out that it fundamentally misunderstands the definition of IG, all the politics surrounding it, and the role and positions of the IGC on the matter. Other parties to the WGIG, WSIS and IGF would rightfully think we've gone a bit nuts if we turn around and now oppose something of which we were the principal and most consistent advocates. Hence, if the process we're following is that previously discarded texts must be re- opposed, I oppose inclusion of this material. My previous response on this included below for reference. Thanks, Bill On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence >> of response on the list as lack of time or interest for a >> particular issue. > > And also lack of support, which a number of people expressed re: > this statement. There were also expressions of interest in using > the next month to generate something more substantial and useful. >> >> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, >> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, >> we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG >> definition of Internet governance to something more open. Rather >> than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and >> civil society, “in their respective roles,” if roles and >> identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition >> must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared >> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and >> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." > > Perhaps a bit of memory would be helpful here. The definition was > drafted by IGC members in WGIG and advocated by us for months there > and beyond in WSIS. Its adoption helped put aside some very > confused, debilitating, and self-serving battles among governments, > 'interested' IGOs (guess which), business, tech community etc and > helped the WSIS move on to a nominally successful conclusion > including establishing, IGF based on this understanding of IG. It > would therefore be a bit odd for us to call for abandoning one of > our more definable contributions to the process. This is especially > so since the above language reflects a misunderstanding of the > definition. The definition does not in any way say that IG is > necessarily negotiated among governments, the private sector and > civil society. IG can be imposed by particular actors, it can > emerge from within a single stakeholder group, it could in principle > even be spontaneously emergent rather than negotiated (custom), > etc. And the definition already reflects an understanding that IG > can be developed and applied by any actors, so if that is the > concern it has already been met. One can read the WGIG report and > the WGIG background report for elaboration on these points, or the > related scholarly and policy literatures. Finally, as has been > discussed here before, one should not get hung up on the "respective > roles" clause in the definition, this was just a purely political > sop to a few insistent government reps in WGIG (particularly Saudi > Arabia and Iran) that wanted it understood that governments are > always and everyone supreme and singularly responsible for public > policy, which is empirically, obviously untrue (see, e.g., ICANN). > The clause has been of no practical significance to subsequent > discussions or processes and is generally understood for what it is, > a non sequitur artifact of doing conceptual work in a UN context. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 13 04:53:38 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:23:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire response to date In-Reply-To: <4A5A3667.9000309@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A5A14C1.8040906@itforchange.net> <4A5A3667.9000309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5AF612.5070100@itforchange.net> the following is my first shot at question i. *To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?* IGF's mandate given by TA is specifically set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in preceding paras of TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, IGF seems largely to be on its way to become a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that IGF takes up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged from how much did it manage to influence these real policy making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards it but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enables 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' ( section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at least three areas 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models than exclusively statist ones. 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Parminder. I appreciate your taking the time to work on this. > > Please do take over the text for Q1. > > I went through the previous IGC statements, and included them where I > thought appropriate. In fact, that is where most of this text is from. > However, if there is any other statement we can add, please do suggest > it, Parminder, or anyone else. > > Best, Ginger > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 13 05:28:18 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:58:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer > specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the > entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies > generally. Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked ' WSIS principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further clearer the current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS principles include DoP (Geneva declaration of principles) principles. To quote the paper "This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society" I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in para 72 of TA to the four process issues - multilateral, transparent, democratic and multistakeholder - that you mention. The present state of discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position that WSIS principles basically means all of 'DoP plus' which includes the four principles that you mention. In fact the compromise on the rights debate in the MAG was that rights will now get discussed under 'WSIS principles' section in IGF - 4. I consider it as a major step forward from a narrow 'process-oriented principles' approach that a a few in civil society want to exclusively take to a broad ' substantive principles' approach that was the real intent of TA and other WSIS documents. parminder > As such, the text below is a total non sequitur that will leave other > parties wondering whether the IGC no longer understands the > negotiations it has participated in and the positions it has advocated > for the past seven years. I oppose including such language. It would > be preferable to build off of one of the relevant statements on the > matter that were laboriously negotiated and approved back when more > people were participating, but unfortunately we don't have a complete > archive and I don't have everything saved anymore. However, I do see > at least one text online that could be adapted, from Feb. 2008, > www.igcaucus.org/node/8 > > [The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should > be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement > of governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the > WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote > and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. > The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s > statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added > as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help > kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main > session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general > applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily > assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could > consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, > and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.] > > We could just delete "To help kick-start that cross-cutting > consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad" and > suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > mandate. Could also reference and support the APC/COE/UNECE > initiative as a building block for such an effort. > > If you want to re-pitch a rights framework, it would be better to do > so in under, "7. Do you have any other comments?" In that context, it > might also be good to cite examples that pertain to global Internet > governance, rather than national policy (or alternatively, to contend > that relevant issues of national policy like universal access should > be subjects of GIG, although then presumably we'd have to say how). > > Best, > > Bill > > On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives >> of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 >> December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the >> Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to >> build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented >> Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and >> share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities >> and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their >> sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised >> on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations >> and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human >> Rights. >> >> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human >> Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and >> principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a >> minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation >> of the IGF. >> >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to >> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in >> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of >> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. >> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, >> and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality >> discussions. >> >> The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion >> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each >> other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should >> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 06:41:05 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:41:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals In-Reply-To: <0A507559-F8FB-4AD9-B310-9DA1F8151933@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <8AC1CD4521F54BC997813FF145DA49B7@userPC> Without arguing the merits of the case for including this under #7 (I think without a huge amount of preparatory explanation this will come at the reader as being from way in the outfield), it should be noted that Garth is not "opposing" the definition from the original document but rather suggesting an update on it based on evolving (technology and other) circumstances... something, that in my opinion is quite legitimate either here or elsewhere and particularly in a field evolving as rapidly as ours. (I was giving my fifth annual version of an Introduction to Community Informatics course last week here in Toronto and I realized that the minor throw away sub-section that I had included in my first syllabus on "virtual community networking" should now probably be taught in a course all on its own on the more widely recognized "social networking"!) Whatever the institutional biases of folks in their IR towers, the language and substance of governance (Internet and otherwise) is evolving, perhaps not at Internet speed (too many institutional barriers) but certainly at dog's life speed. MBG -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:02 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals Hi, On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Garth Graham wrote: >> >> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later >> updates of specific questions, to see if the substance of a >> previous comment I'd made is included or covered by existing >> wording. I don't see that it is. >> As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was >> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending >> fundamentals. And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the >> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to >> include it would be under any other comments. > Thanks Garth. > Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this > contains some wording that must be discussed. I'm a bit confused by the process we are following here. This text was dropped in the June discussion after some of us pointed out that it fundamentally misunderstands the definition of IG, all the politics surrounding it, and the role and positions of the IGC on the matter. Other parties to the WGIG, WSIS and IGF would rightfully think we've gone a bit nuts if we turn around and now oppose something of which we were the principal and most consistent advocates. Hence, if the process we're following is that previously discarded texts must be re- opposed, I oppose inclusion of this material. My previous response on this included below for reference. Thanks, Bill On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence >> of response on the list as lack of time or interest for a >> particular issue. > > And also lack of support, which a number of people expressed re: > this statement. There were also expressions of interest in using > the next month to generate something more substantial and useful. >> >> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, >> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, >> we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG >> definition of Internet governance to something more open. Rather >> than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and >> civil society, "in their respective roles," if roles and >> identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition >> must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared >> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and >> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." > > Perhaps a bit of memory would be helpful here. The definition was > drafted by IGC members in WGIG and advocated by us for months there > and beyond in WSIS. Its adoption helped put aside some very > confused, debilitating, and self-serving battles among governments, > 'interested' IGOs (guess which), business, tech community etc and > helped the WSIS move on to a nominally successful conclusion > including establishing, IGF based on this understanding of IG. It > would therefore be a bit odd for us to call for abandoning one of > our more definable contributions to the process. This is especially > so since the above language reflects a misunderstanding of the > definition. The definition does not in any way say that IG is > necessarily negotiated among governments, the private sector and > civil society. IG can be imposed by particular actors, it can > emerge from within a single stakeholder group, it could in principle > even be spontaneously emergent rather than negotiated (custom), > etc. And the definition already reflects an understanding that IG > can be developed and applied by any actors, so if that is the > concern it has already been met. One can read the WGIG report and > the WGIG background report for elaboration on these points, or the > related scholarly and policy literatures. Finally, as has been > discussed here before, one should not get hung up on the "respective > roles" clause in the definition, this was just a purely political > sop to a few insistent government reps in WGIG (particularly Saudi > Arabia and Iran) that wanted it understood that governments are > always and everyone supreme and singularly responsible for public > policy, which is empirically, obviously untrue (see, e.g., ICANN). > The clause has been of no practical significance to subsequent > discussions or processes and is generally understood for what it is, > a non sequitur artifact of doing conceptual work in a UN context. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 06:50:13 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:50:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals In-Reply-To: <0A507559-F8FB-4AD9-B310-9DA1F8151933@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <44A01155740541FBB816CF65313962A6@userPC> Without arguing the merits of the case for including this under #7 (I think without a huge amount of preparatory explanation this will come at the reader as being from way in the outfield), it should be noted that Garth is not "opposing" the definition from the original document but rather suggesting an update on it based on evolving (technology and other) circumstances... something, that in my opinion is quite legitimate either here or elsewhere and particularly in a field evolving as rapidly as ours. (I was giving my fifth annual version of an Introduction to Community Informatics course last week here in Toronto and I realized that the minor throw away sub-section that I had included in my first syllabus on "virtual community networking" should now probably be taught in a course all on its own on the more widely recognized "social networking"!) Whatever the institutional biases of folks in their IR towers, the language and substance of governance (Internet and otherwise) is evolving, perhaps not at Internet speed (too many institutional barriers) but certainly at dog's life speed. MBG -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:02 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals Hi, On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Garth Graham wrote: >> >> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later >> updates of specific questions, to see if the substance of a >> previous comment I'd made is included or covered by existing >> wording. I don't see that it is. >> As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was >> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending >> fundamentals. And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the >> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to >> include it would be under any other comments. > Thanks Garth. > Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this > contains some wording that must be discussed. I'm a bit confused by the process we are following here. This text was dropped in the June discussion after some of us pointed out that it fundamentally misunderstands the definition of IG, all the politics surrounding it, and the role and positions of the IGC on the matter. Other parties to the WGIG, WSIS and IGF would rightfully think we've gone a bit nuts if we turn around and now oppose something of which we were the principal and most consistent advocates. Hence, if the process we're following is that previously discarded texts must be re- opposed, I oppose inclusion of this material. My previous response on this included below for reference. Thanks, Bill On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence >> of response on the list as lack of time or interest for a >> particular issue. > > And also lack of support, which a number of people expressed re: > this statement. There were also expressions of interest in using > the next month to generate something more substantial and useful. >> >> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, >> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, >> we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG >> definition of Internet governance to something more open. Rather >> than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and >> civil society, "in their respective roles," if roles and >> identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition >> must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared >> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and >> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." > > Perhaps a bit of memory would be helpful here. The definition was > drafted by IGC members in WGIG and advocated by us for months there > and beyond in WSIS. Its adoption helped put aside some very > confused, debilitating, and self-serving battles among governments, > 'interested' IGOs (guess which), business, tech community etc and > helped the WSIS move on to a nominally successful conclusion > including establishing, IGF based on this understanding of IG. It > would therefore be a bit odd for us to call for abandoning one of > our more definable contributions to the process. This is especially > so since the above language reflects a misunderstanding of the > definition. The definition does not in any way say that IG is > necessarily negotiated among governments, the private sector and > civil society. IG can be imposed by particular actors, it can > emerge from within a single stakeholder group, it could in principle > even be spontaneously emergent rather than negotiated (custom), > etc. And the definition already reflects an understanding that IG > can be developed and applied by any actors, so if that is the > concern it has already been met. One can read the WGIG report and > the WGIG background report for elaboration on these points, or the > related scholarly and policy literatures. Finally, as has been > discussed here before, one should not get hung up on the "respective > roles" clause in the definition, this was just a purely political > sop to a few insistent government reps in WGIG (particularly Saudi > Arabia and Iran) that wanted it understood that governments are > always and everyone supreme and singularly responsible for public > policy, which is empirically, obviously untrue (see, e.g., ICANN). > The clause has been of no practical significance to subsequent > discussions or processes and is generally understood for what it is, > a non sequitur artifact of doing conceptual work in a UN context. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 07:01:40 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:31:40 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date Q 2 "remote participation" (Q6) In-Reply-To: References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B1414.7060108@gmail.com> Sylvia Caras wrote: > Is "Remote Participation" understood to include transcription and > archiving? Is adding those terms redundant? > > " ... the use of Remote Participation, including transcription and > archiving, as a tool ..." > > Sylvia, thanks for this point. This section was eliminated from Q2 a version or two ago, as it is addressed in Q6, and no longer seemed relevant here. How about adding your phrase to Q 6, as follows in the first para of Q6: 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation, including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is competitive and convenient. Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help others to start. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the annual IGF meeting. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation in a substantial way, to improve the quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence of some of the world's most renowned civil society opinion leaders is noticeable; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and governments are not represented on a high enough level and b) The present participants of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well-received for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant impact in the quality and diversity of participation. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. Sylvia Caras wrote: >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> ... >> Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this >> multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and >> expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF >> 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. >> ... >> > > Is "Remote Participation" understood to include transcription and > archiving? Is adding those terms redundant? > > " ... the use of Remote Participation, including transcription and > archiving, as a tool ..." > > Sylvia > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 06:52:25 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:22:25 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B11E9.9060709@gmail.com> Bill and Parminder thanks for your comments. Taking into account Bill Drake's suggestions, and Parminder's comments on Q2, I propose the following text in place of the previous text for Q2 as a compromise. Please let me know what you think: 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. William Drake wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer > specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the > entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies > generally. As such, the text below is a total non sequitur that will > leave other parties wondering whether the IGC no longer understands > the negotiations it has participated in and the positions it has > advocated for the past seven years. I oppose including such > language. It would be preferable to build off of one of the relevant > statements on the matter that were laboriously negotiated and approved > back when more people were participating, but unfortunately we don't > have a complete archive and I don't have everything saved anymore. > However, I do see at least one text online that could be adapted, from > Feb. 2008, www.igcaucus.org/node/8 > > [The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should > be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement > of governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the > WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote > and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. > The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s > statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added > as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help > kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main > session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general > applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily > assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could > consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, > and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.] > > We could just delete "To help kick-start that cross-cutting > consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad" and > suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > mandate. Could also reference and support the APC/COE/UNECE > initiative as a building block for such an effort. > > If you want to re-pitch a rights framework, it would be better to do > so in under, "7. Do you have any other comments?" In that context, it > might also be good to cite examples that pertain to global Internet > governance, rather than national policy (or alternatively, to contend > that relevant issues of national policy like universal access should > be subjects of GIG, although then presumably we'd have to say how). > > Best, > > Bill > > On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives >> of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 >> December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the >> Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to >> build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented >> Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and >> share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities >> and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their >> sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised >> on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations >> and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human >> Rights. >> >> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human >> Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and >> principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a >> minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation >> of the IGF. >> >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to >> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in >> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of >> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. >> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, >> and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality >> discussions. >> >> The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion >> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each >> other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should >> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 07:10:54 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:40:54 -0430 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> Message-ID: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the August deadline? In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would give you more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you? Regards, Ginger Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Michael Gurstein > > A quick reply and a little more later. > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > wrote: > > Hi, > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's > proposed paras > > Hello Michael Gurstein, > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein > > wrote: > > > > > "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF > Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation > substantially and significantly to further enhance the > quality of programs with greater diversity of > participation" sounds better? > > YES... > > Thanks. > > > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) > The absence or > non-participation of some of the world's most renowned > Civil Society opinion > leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise > committed to > social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at > the IGF; > Governments are not represented on a level high enough > > HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY > OPINION LEADERS" > (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE > INTERNAL > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY > NEITHER WE NOR THE > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE > "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > BE. > > AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > FOLKS FROM CIVIL > SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE > LOOKING FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE > LOOKING FOR LEADERS > OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE > CATEGORIES IS > PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER > YOUR STATEMENT. > > IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE > THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF > NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT > THAT AND SIMILARLY > WITH GOVERNMENTS. > > I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of > such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present > participants constitute a complete, representative, and > ultimate group ? > > NO, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA > SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; Vendana > Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I wasn't thinking of > these names, nor was my point intended to bring in anyone whom I know > or associated with. Looks like you are reading between the lines of > what I write. > > > HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE RATHER > MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK > WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT THEM AND > THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND. > > Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in your > comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing the Indian > point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a participant from India, > I have faith in and respect for my country but I believe that in an > International context I am at least a little wider than a national. I > have been inspired by teachers who taught me in my school days that > "patriotism is a prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths > implies that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global. > > (Will come back this point and write more in response to what you have > written a little later) > > Thank you. > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > > > > MBG > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > > M > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 07:18:59 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:48:59 -0430 Subject: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals In-Reply-To: <44A01155740541FBB816CF65313962A6@userPC> References: <44A01155740541FBB816CF65313962A6@userPC> Message-ID: <4A5B1823.8010204@gmail.com> Bill, Garth, Michael and all.... Good to see some discussion. Thanks. While I do think it is valid to re-submit a text for consideration, right now we are on a very tight schedule, and I do not think we have time to resolve this discussion before our July 15 deadline.. I suggest that we continue the discussion on this point, but that we remove it from the questionnaire for now. Is that acceptable? Best, Ginger Michael Gurstein wrote: > Without arguing the merits of the case for including this under #7 (I think > without a huge amount of preparatory explanation this will come at the > reader as being from way in the outfield), it should be noted that Garth is > not "opposing" the definition from the original document but rather > suggesting an update on it based on evolving (technology and other) > circumstances... something, that in my opinion is quite legitimate either > here or elsewhere and particularly in a field evolving as rapidly as ours. > > (I was giving my fifth annual version of an Introduction to Community > Informatics course last week here in Toronto and I realized that the minor > throw away sub-section that I had included in my first syllabus on "virtual > community networking" should now probably be taught in a course all on its > own on the more widely recognized "social networking"!) > > Whatever the institutional biases of folks in their IR towers, the language > and substance of governance (Internet and otherwise) is evolving, perhaps > not at Internet speed (too many institutional barriers) but certainly at > dog's life speed. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:02 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals > > > Hi, > > On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > >> Garth Graham wrote: >> >>> I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later >>> updates of specific questions, to see if the substance of a >>> previous comment I'd made is included or covered by existing >>> wording. I don't see that it is. >>> As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and I was >>> pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in defending >>> fundamentals. And, given the issues flagged and the wording in the >>> responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I can see to >>> include it would be under any other comments. >>> >> Thanks Garth. >> Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this >> contains some wording that must be discussed. >> > > I'm a bit confused by the process we are following here. This text > was dropped in the June discussion after some of us pointed out that > it fundamentally misunderstands the definition of IG, all the politics > surrounding it, and the role and positions of the IGC on the matter. > Other parties to the WGIG, WSIS and IGF would rightfully think we've > gone a bit nuts if we turn around and now oppose something of which we > were the principal and most consistent advocates. Hence, if the > process we're following is that previously discarded texts must be re- > opposed, I oppose inclusion of this material. > > My previous response on this included below for reference. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, William Drake wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >>> Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence >>> of response on the list as lack of time or interest for a >>> particular issue. >>> >> And also lack of support, which a number of people expressed re: >> this statement. There were also expressions of interest in using >> the next month to generate something more substantial and useful. >> >>> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, >>> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, >>> we believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG >>> definition of Internet governance to something more open. Rather >>> than a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and >>> civil society, "in their respective roles," if roles and >>> identities are agreed to be self-determined then the definition >>> must become: "The development and application by ANYONE of shared >>> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and >>> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." >>> >> Perhaps a bit of memory would be helpful here. The definition was >> drafted by IGC members in WGIG and advocated by us for months there >> and beyond in WSIS. Its adoption helped put aside some very >> confused, debilitating, and self-serving battles among governments, >> 'interested' IGOs (guess which), business, tech community etc and >> helped the WSIS move on to a nominally successful conclusion >> including establishing, IGF based on this understanding of IG. It >> would therefore be a bit odd for us to call for abandoning one of >> our more definable contributions to the process. This is especially >> so since the above language reflects a misunderstanding of the >> definition. The definition does not in any way say that IG is >> necessarily negotiated among governments, the private sector and >> civil society. IG can be imposed by particular actors, it can >> emerge from within a single stakeholder group, it could in principle >> even be spontaneously emergent rather than negotiated (custom), >> etc. And the definition already reflects an understanding that IG >> can be developed and applied by any actors, so if that is the >> concern it has already been met. One can read the WGIG report and >> the WGIG background report for elaboration on these points, or the >> related scholarly and policy literatures. Finally, as has been >> discussed here before, one should not get hung up on the "respective >> roles" clause in the definition, this was just a purely political >> sop to a few insistent government reps in WGIG (particularly Saudi >> Arabia and Iran) that wanted it understood that governments are >> always and everyone supreme and singularly responsible for public >> policy, which is empirically, obviously untrue (see, e.g., ICANN). >> The clause has been of no practical significance to subsequent >> discussions or processes and is generally understood for what it is, >> a non sequitur artifact of doing conceptual work in a UN context. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 07:23:47 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:53:47 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> Ian, thanks so much for your comments. I have tried to include your recommendations in the threads on the individual questions, and will send out another complete draft later today. I hope you will comment again. Regards, Ginger Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > My time is going to be even worse than I thought this week - like Parminder, > several factors have fallen into a rare confluence. Not sure I will be able > to participate further, but I do appreciate all your efforts and know from > past experience how much energy is needed to try to get together a consensus > statement here. > > So a few comments below. I may not be able to follow discussions of each > question, and will personally find it easier to keep commenting on a > completed draft. > > > On 12/07/09 10:41 PM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > > >> Here is a very rough draft, what we have to date. I will work on it >> today, adding missing parts and working on text. >> >> I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little time. >> Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version later today, so >> please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I suggest we get >> consensus on substance first, and polish last. Please post agreement / >> objections as soon as possible so we can work them out. Thanks. >> >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> >> The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes >> at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening >> to note that some such national and regional processes are already >> taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to >> establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of >> governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >> should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >> appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC >> offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard >> >> > Others have commented here. I also bear in mind Jeremy's comments. I believe > we can say that broadly speaking the mandate has been fulfilled. > > >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness >> and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the >> importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of >> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the >> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It >> allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the >> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this >> multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and >> expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the >> IGF 2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, >> we recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation >> Working Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF >> 2009, especially in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the >> use of the RP resources from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. >> > > I think here we might be better off just saying we believe that in general > IGF has embodied the WSIS principles . Not sure how rights and principles > fits in here or whether such a long expose of this issue is appropriate here > >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >> acted as a catalyst for change? >> >> Text from Shiva: >> >> IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of >> Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity >> involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory pahase >> as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an opportunityh to >> experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and are >> becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' >> equality is largely an IGF achievement. >> > > I think this is good, but the text below IMHO is not suitable. I don't think > we should say direct impact has been minimal. I think we should say that in > the absence of a larger scale evaluation it would be difficult to measure > direct and indirect impact. > >> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making process >> has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. A >> point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting may be >> relevant: >> >> (from the meeting transcript) >> IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. >> But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together. >> These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days >> deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which >> session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder >> could be classified and identified, grouped. And that could become >> some kind of a reference paper. It could become a reference document >> for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer >> to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy. This is the >> idea >> of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with >> this or >> in agreement with this." And that could guide them and may not >> comfort >> them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an >> idea of what is happening in the real world. Right now the decisions are >> taken by government, by businesses in >> complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not >> reflect >> the mood of the IGF. >> So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF >> Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and >> report on >> the mood of IGF. Thank you. >> >> >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> >> At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the >> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus will like >> to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term >> "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official >> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of >> the IGF. >> >> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to >> making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the >> new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are >> of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the >> other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally >> discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand >> that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. >> All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries >> of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should >> be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics >> are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such >> topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as >> appropriate. >> >> *Membership of the MAG* >> >> € The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required >> balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so >> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present >> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >> third of MAG members should be rotated every year. >> € In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities >> of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the >> Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is >> associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly >> established, and made open along with due justifications. >> € Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder >> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be >> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among >> all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary >> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards should >> continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >> € Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate >> processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that >> it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given >> set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular >> stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially >> in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope >> for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, >> however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations >> from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept >> to the minimum. >> € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special >> interest groups. >> >> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >> >> With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time >> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >> € One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the >> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >> decision making processes to make them more effective. These are >> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. >> € It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups >> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >> € We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has >> any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. >> For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires >> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' >> etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the >> IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN >> Secretary General. >> € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >> plans for the year ahead. We >> suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would >> also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and >> prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum >> beyond 2010. >> € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out >> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >> Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation >> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >> fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of >> the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources >> needed to perform its role effectively. >> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >> of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF >> annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. >> >> *Special Advisors and Chair* >> >> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >> mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for >> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should >> be kept within a reasonable limit. >> We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature >> of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN >> Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy >> chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues >> for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the >> division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the >> present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested >> new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the >> Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative >> has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >> about the post-Hyderabad phase. >> And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present >> Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend >> the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through >> difficult formative times >> > > No problem in general with the content above but it does need a substantial > edit to be relevant to current question > >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> 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 need 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. >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more >> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet >> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more >> participative and democratic. >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last >> few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be >> assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its >> functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To >> this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets >> involved in the IGF's management. >> > > I agree with this section > >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> > > There seem to be three suggestions below - remote participation, regional > forums, and secretariat funding. I agree with inclusion of all, but also > endorse Parminder's comments on emphasis on regional forums. > > I aLSO believe we should not be too prescriptive as regards funding. Yes we > need to mention it and give examples and call for more. Beyond that it might > be difficult to get agreement > >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the >> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive >> participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of >> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more >> active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, >> but not limited to, remote participation. >> >> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people >> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the >> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with >> promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an >> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet >> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and >> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in >> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad >> based economic and social development. >> >> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of >> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in >> 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. >> For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the >> "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated >> face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF >> should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance >> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and >> engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and >> for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the >> work done elsewhere. >> >> >> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex >> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more >> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with >> few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular >> sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options >> make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should >> be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites >> should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and >> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is >> competitive and convenient. >> >> [Text proposed by Vanda, needs polishing] >> >> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term >> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and >> policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using >> its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some >> regions and to help others to start. >> >> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >> support of IGF ­ will be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in >> a regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years. >> >> [Text to be re-written by Shiva] >> suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to >> extend unconditional travel support (as opposed to travel support from a >> Business Trust which may have implied conditions) at least for >> panelists. To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend >> comfortable assistance to about 200 lead participants (panel speakers, >> team organizers etc.) which may have to cover standard class airfare for >> distances up to 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess >> of 4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended >> hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel >> speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to >> be well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - >> $700,000 as unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded >> NGOs and International Organizations and from the UN. Such a fund would >> enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from >> Experts who are not the usual IGF participants. It would also help those >> participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have >> difficulty in traveling to the IGF. >> >> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past >> various such innovations have been considered - including speed >> dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always >> the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the >> reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be >> palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a >> whole will suffer in the long term it it does not prove its value to the >> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >> >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Jul 13 07:31:24 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:31:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <21907213.166154.1247484684066.JavaMail.www@wwinf2612> Roland Perry wrote Message du 11/07/09 11:23 > De : "Roland Perry" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet > > > In message <4A57E366.2B1B8A60 at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:57:10 on Fri, 10 Jul > 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > > >> That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But > >> international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF > >> issue though). > > > > I disagree. The ASO and the ISP constituency, part of ICANN, > >is directly related to these sorts of issues. > > The company making undersea cables is probably represented via the > Commercial and Business Users Constituency, but that's to discuss their > domain name registration, not the thickness of the copper. > > >>Are you really wanting customers to boycott suppliers who use > >>websites hosted with "weaker" DNS? > > > >Yes, our members do exactly so. > > Can you point us to a list of your members, so we can see what kind of > entities they are? > > >> As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between > >> using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant > >> whose content I want to access. > > > > DNS is DNS, how it is configured is a completely different matter. > > Physical configuration is the main issue here. > > >> That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was > >> wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user". > > > >Registrants are users too. > > But are a very small subset, and the objective was to discuss how ICANN > affects the *others*, who are "average users". > > >Restricted trade that is not fully justified is legal harm. Such harm > >impacts everyone. > > I'm restricted from practising as a dentist (I haven't passed the > exams). Is that harming everyone? > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 07:34:24 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:04:24 -0430 Subject: [governance] Q4 MAG - Request for a MAG member volunteer to update Q4 Message-ID: <4A5B1BC0.8060707@gmail.com> As Ian pointed out, the text in Q4 is just copy/pasted from IGC's previous statement. Could one of our MAG members please update this section? Perhaps we should also add something about the Open Consultations, which have allowed input from all groups... I would greatly appreciate someone answering to confirm they will do this. Thanks, Ginger 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus would like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as appropriate. *Membership of the MAG* • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. • In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. *Role and Structure of the MAG* With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. *Special Advisors and Chair* The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase. And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through difficult formative times ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 07:35:22 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:05:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it also apply to Q3? There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as comment from IGC? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this concept > and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we could continue > this discussion after the questionnaire is submitted, perhaps for comments > to be submitted by the August deadline? > > In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would give you > more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you? > > Regards, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello Michael Gurstein >> >> A quick reply and a little more later. >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >> ] >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> ; Michael Gurstein >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's >> proposed paras >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein, >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation >> substantially and significantly to further enhance the >> quality of programs with greater diversity of >> participation" sounds better? >> YES... >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) >> The absence or >> non-participation of some of the world's most renowned >> Civil Society opinion >> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise >> committed to >> social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at >> the IGF; >> Governments are not represented on a level high enough >> >> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY >> OPINION LEADERS" >> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE >> INTERNAL >> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY >> NEITHER WE NOR THE >> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE >> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >> BE. >> >> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A >> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE >> CATEGORIES IS >> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER >> YOUR STATEMENT. >> >> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE >> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT >> THAT AND SIMILARLY >> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >> >> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >> >> >> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of >> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present >> participants constitute a complete, representative, and >> ultimate group ? NO, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING >> WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >> >> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; Vendana Shiva >> is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I wasn't thinking of these >> names, nor was my point intended to bring in anyone whom I know or >> associated with. Looks like you are reading between the lines of what I >> write. >> >> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE >> RATHER >> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK >> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT THEM AND >> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND. >> >> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in your comment. >> Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing the Indian point of view? I am >> not. I am born in India, a participant from India, I have faith in and >> respect for my country but I believe that in an International context I am >> at least a little wider than a national. I have been inspired by teachers >> who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a prejudice" which is >> profound thinking which in depths implies that one must be beyond being >> patriotic and be rather global. >> >> (Will come back this point and write more in response to what you have >> written a little later) >> >> Thank you. >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >> >> >> MBG >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> >> M >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 07:44:21 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:14:21 -0430 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> Hi Shiva, I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. Best, Ginger Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Ginger > > You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather than as an IGC > statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it also apply to Q3? > > There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and the > misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really feel that the > entire statement has to be dropped as comment from IGC? > > Thanks. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this > concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we > could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is > submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the August > deadline? > > In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would > give you more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you? > > Regards, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Michael Gurstein > > A quick reply and a little more later. > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > > >> wrote: > > Hi, > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > >] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >; Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's > proposed paras > > Hello Michael Gurstein, > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein > > >> wrote: > > > > > "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF > Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation > substantially and significantly to further enhance the > quality of programs with greater diversity of > participation" sounds better? > YES... > Thanks. > > > > There are two aspects to be considered in this > regard: a) > The absence or > non-participation of some of the world's most renowned > Civil Society opinion > leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are > otherwise > committed to > social and other governance issues off IGF are not > seen at > the IGF; > Governments are not represented on a level high enough > > HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL > SOCIETY > OPINION LEADERS" > (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND > PROBABLY MORE > INTERNAL > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY > NEITHER WE NOR THE > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE > "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > BE. > > AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > FOLKS FROM CIVIL > SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING FOR LEADERS > OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO > HAVE A > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE > CATEGORIES IS > PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY > UNDER > YOUR STATEMENT. > > IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE > THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF > NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO > ABOUT > THAT AND SIMILARLY > WITH GOVERNMENTS. > > I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative > interpretation of > such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the > present > participants constitute a complete, representative, and > ultimate group ? NO, BUT I'M HAVING > TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA > SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; > Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I > wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point intended to > bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. Looks like > you are reading between the lines of what I write. > > HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO > ME TO BE RATHER > MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK > WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT > THEM AND > THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND. > > Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in > your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing > the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a > participant from India, I have faith in and respect for my > country but I believe that in an International context I am at > least a little wider than a national. I have been inspired by > teachers who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a > prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths implies > that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global. > > (Will come back this point and write more in response to what > you have written a little later) > > Thank you. > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > > MBG > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > M > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Jul 13 07:56:48 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:56:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Parminder wrote: > William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger, >> >> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer >> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the >> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies >> generally. > Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked ' > WSIS principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further > clearer the current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS > principles include DoP (Geneva declaration of principles) > principles. To quote the paper > "This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the > Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the > Information Society" That the questionnaire links to the Geneva Declaration is not surprising since that's the first official document in which the principles are agreed (unless you want to count earlier version in the regional declarations etc). That doesn't mean that the WSIS principles on IG are now understood to mean the entire DOP (covering e.g. e-education, e-health, etc etc etc). Indeed, the second bit you quote, "as contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda," demonstrates the point. The entire Geneva DOP is not contained in the TA. The WSIS principles on IG are, and they are enunciated in a limited number of paragraphs. > > > I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined > construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in > para 72 of TA to the four process issues - multilateral, > transparent, democratic and multistakeholder - that you mention. I don't know what self-determined means, it's been pretty clear for years what everyone's been talking about, as the transcripts of the consultations etc would demonstrate. But I would agree with you that people have often been selective in invoking the principles, depending on their objectives and the particular matters under discussion. As I've written elsewhere (piece in Wolfgang's power of ideas book), Paragraph 48 establishes guiding principles on the conduct of governance processes, namely that, they “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” The latter point is amplified by Paragraph 49’s statement that Internet governance, “should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations.” Going further, Paragraph 50 holds that Internet governance issues “should be addressed in a coordinated manner.” While this point is raised as a preface to the call for the UN Secretary General to convene a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to study the issues, the need for coordination was invoked often enough in the course of the WSIS process to suggest that it stands as a generalizable principle as well. Taken together, these prescriptions constitute what could be called the procedural component of what came to be known as the “WSIS Principles on Internet governance.” In addition, Paragraphs 48-50 set out a substantive component, i.e. that Internet governance “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism.” I think it's clear that the agreed principles on IG include both procedural and substantive components, and the latter pertain directly to the notion that IG should promote development. I'd guess you'd agree with that. But this is very different from saying that the rest of the DOP that is not on IG can be characterized as the WSIS principles on IG. > The present state of discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position > that WSIS principles basically means all of 'DoP plus' which > includes the four principles that you mention. The MAG doesn't have a mandate to redefine or reinterpret international agreements or rewrite the entire history of the WSIG/IGF discussions. It has a mandate to program a conference, and in trying to figure out where to place discussions on programs in order to satisfy stakeholders has frequently taken some liberties with concepts etc. Moreover, the discourse you refer to is of course contested, with the Chinese saying one thing, others saying other things, etc. So if some parties are actually contending that the principles on IG include every DOP provision on every issue concerning the global information society, rather than just the ones on IG, then with all due respect this is pretty far from dispositive. Utterances made in program committee meetings for international conferences are not authoritative. > In fact the compromise on the rights debate in the MAG was that > rights will now get discussed under 'WSIS principles' section in IGF > - 4. I consider it as a major step forward from a narrow 'process- > oriented principles' approach that a a few in civil society want to > exclusively take to a broad ' substantive principles' approach that > was the real intent of TA and other WSIS documents. Both the procedural and substantive components can be viewed from a rights perspective, although that would require a certain level of conceptual precision. The text I was responding to was different in scope. So...if you are suggesting that a caucus statement on the principles should go beyond the procedural component (which was the focus of the prior statement I referenced) and cover the substantive, we can readily agree. If you're saying that every last bit of the DOP is actually about IG and/or that this is true because some people said so in a MAG meeting, let's just agree to disagree rather than subjecting the list to one of our patented bilateral soliloquies :-) Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 08:25:04 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:55:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow as well, but not tonight. Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but preferred not to. Shiva. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Shiva, > > I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, and Ian, as > well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied with the wording on the > funding concept. You are welcome to continue the discussion and see if you > can reach a consensus on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is > happy, the statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the thread > on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete questionnaire draft, and tell > us what you think? > > Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > > Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. > > Best, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello Ginger >> >> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather than as an IGC >> statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it also apply to Q3? >> >> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and the >> misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really feel that the entire >> statement has to be dropped as comment from IGC? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque > gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this >> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we >> could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is >> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the August >> deadline? >> >> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would >> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you? >> >> Regards, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein >> >> A quick reply and a little more later. >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >> >> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >> >] >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > >; Michael Gurstein >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's >> proposed paras >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein, >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation >> substantially and significantly to further enhance the >> quality of programs with greater diversity of >> participation" sounds better? >> YES... >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> There are two aspects to be considered in this >> regard: a) >> The absence or >> non-participation of some of the world's most renowned >> Civil Society opinion >> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are >> otherwise >> committed to >> social and other governance issues off IGF are not >> seen at >> the IGF; >> Governments are not represented on a level high enough >> >> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL >> SOCIETY >> OPINION LEADERS" >> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >> PROBABLY MORE >> INTERNAL >> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY >> NEITHER WE NOR THE >> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE >> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >> BE. >> >> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO >> HAVE A >> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE >> CATEGORIES IS >> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY >> UNDER >> YOUR STATEMENT. >> >> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE >> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO >> ABOUT >> THAT AND SIMILARLY >> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >> >> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >> >> >> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >> interpretation of >> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the >> present >> participants constitute a complete, representative, and >> ultimate group ? NO, BUT I'M HAVING >> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >> >> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; >> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I >> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point intended to >> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. Looks like >> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >> >> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO >> ME TO BE RATHER >> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK >> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT >> THEM AND >> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND. >> >> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in >> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing >> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a >> participant from India, I have faith in and respect for my >> country but I believe that in an International context I am at >> least a little wider than a national. I have been inspired by >> teachers who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a >> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths implies >> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global. >> >> (Will come back this point and write more in response to what >> you have written a little later) >> >> Thank you. >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >> >> MBG >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> M >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jul 13 08:33:49 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:33:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet In-Reply-To: <21907213.166154.1247484684066.JavaMail.www@wwinf2612> References: <20090707131411.6p78qugvkso4wg0s@www.tldainc.org> <4A5400E2.2080402@cavebear.com> <4A547CD5.6060105@cavebear.com> <4A548A44.8040108@cavebear.com> <4A5506BA.9020301@cavebear.com> <4A57E366.2B1B8A60@ix.netcom.com> <21907213.166154.1247484684066.JavaMail.www@wwinf2612> Message-ID: <5rqEvIBtmyWKFA2q@perry.co.uk> In message <21907213.166154.1247484684066.JavaMail.www at wwinf2612>, at 13:31:24 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Jean-Louis FULLSACK writes >their > >Didn't you notice that the "copper" age is passed since two decades, >even in the undersea cables It's a metaphor. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 08:39:13 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:09:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC statement/questionnaire Q3 In-Reply-To: References: <4A59FF7D.5010103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B2AF1.7050705@gmail.com> I have tightened and shortened Shiva's proposal for Q3, also taking into account Ian's and other comments. Please comment. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during WSIS, and less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals, due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder groups. One might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance?, "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other international policy process and governments perceive civil society participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the mutlistakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other widespread impact. [The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.] [Move this section to No. 7? ] Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > wrote: > > Hello All, > > The following is a more complete response to Q3: > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > wrote: > > Hello All, > > > ( statement further fine-tuned. Finer changes are inlaid into the > following text) > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus notices an improvement in the > level of discussions between stakeholders since the WSIS > process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration > during the IGF phase than during WSIS, and it could also be > said that there is far less confrontation. It could also be > said that as IGF progresses into its fourth year there is > increasing constructive collaboration. ( For instance, In the > 2009 workshop proposals, due to the request by the IGF > Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that include > business, government, academia and civil society working > together. - should we say this ?) > > > > The impact of the IGF could be seen on a deeper level rather > than superficially. If the question is posed differently to > examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen > that the participants as individuals or organizations, the > participants have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF > which in turn gets shared and influences the respective > stakeholder groups and others.Variant questions such as "Has > your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet > governance? , "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact > with other peers who have assisted in your work? and "Has your > participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or > affected your perspective on any particular governance > issues?" etc.may elicit a positive response. > > > > Also, the Internet Governance Forum, irrespective of its > direct impact on the policy making process of Governments, is > changing the way Government's perceive Civil Society > participation in the policy making process. During the > preparatory phase as also during the last three IGFs, > Governments had an opportunity to experience the > mutli-stakholder participatory process and they are becoming > comfortable with the idea and process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. (The IGF > process promotes faith in the functionality of the > participatory governance process and could inspire National > Governments to emulate the participatory process) > > > As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not > have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. This > is a "design" aspect of the IGF which may be largely > preserved. At the same time it is observed that due to this > status of the IGF, the policy making process of National > Governments and Regional Governments have not sufficiently > paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings > together participants with different expertise from various > stakeholder groups from various geographic regions around the > world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues but these > valuable and meaningful deliberations have not been > systematically channeled to contribute to the actual policy > making process. IGF could devise a system by which > Session/Topic Reports could be generated to summarize the > positions of stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during > the IGF. Though this may not constitute to be a > "recommendation" or a "formal statement" from the IGF, such > Session/Topic Reports could be released under different topic > headings and could become Reference Documents to contribute to > the National / Regional policy making process. > > Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources > from the IGF Reference Papers on the relevant issues/topics > while framing proposals for a new policy / change of an > existing policy related to Internet. The proposed Reference > documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom > of Expression to outline the overall IGF position with > sub-sections on stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics > such as a topic on Cloud Computing or Social Networking. Such > Documents would enable the National / Regional Policy making > process to comprehensively and readily understand the "mood" > of the IGF on a topic on which a certain legislation/ > directive/ guideline is being considered. At present decisions > are taken by governments and by business corporations largely > in isolation of the IGF deliberations, without taking into > consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor consider the > solutions proposed by the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF > Secretariat considers this as an action item and introduce a > mechanism to thoroughly record as audio-visuals collated with > text transcripts and presentations to be archives as source > records of each panel discussion, workshop, roundtable, open > forum, or in any other format, in every room. In addition the > Secretariat may also assign neutral staff with synthesing > skills to prepare consensus/ stakeholder position reports on > issues/sessions. The IGF Secretariat may also proactively > reach out to Governments to urge them to adopt it as a > convention to call for IGF Position papers and related > documents to be used as inputs in their policy making process. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: > > Shiva is actively working on Q3. > > I would like to see some recognition of the improvement in > the level of discussion between stakeholders since the > WSIS process in the impact. I think there is much more > collaboration (in general) than during WSIS, and far less > confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals in > particular, due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to > merge proposals, there are panels that include business, > government, academia and civil society working together. > > We might also look at Ian's response to the questionnaire > for ideas as well: > > *3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or > indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder > group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst > for change?* > You will probably have to probe a lot deeper to discover > impact, and a lot of this would be at a personal level, > which is not directly covered by the way that question is > posed. Where individuals are impacted or have learnt, > eventually that will flow though to stakeholder groups. > But to get meaningful feedback on impact, you may have to > ask a few questions along the lines of “has you > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet > governance? “ “has your involvement led to meaningful > contact with other peers that has assisted your work” , > “has multistakeholder involvement changed or affected your > perspective on any particular governance issues” etc. > These sort of questions would assist in getting a fuller > understanding of what the impact might have been. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 06:52:25 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:22:25 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B11E9.9060709@gmail.com> Bill and Parminder thanks for your comments. Taking into account Bill Drake's suggestions, and Parminder's comments on Q2, I propose the following text in place of the previous text for Q2 as a compromise. Please let me know what you think: 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. William Drake wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer > specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the > entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies > generally. As such, the text below is a total non sequitur that will > leave other parties wondering whether the IGC no longer understands > the negotiations it has participated in and the positions it has > advocated for the past seven years. I oppose including such > language. It would be preferable to build off of one of the relevant > statements on the matter that were laboriously negotiated and approved > back when more people were participating, but unfortunately we don't > have a complete archive and I don't have everything saved anymore. > However, I do see at least one text online that could be adapted, from > Feb. 2008, www.igcaucus.org/node/8 > > [The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should > be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement > of governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the > WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote > and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. > The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s > statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added > as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help > kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main > session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general > applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily > assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could > consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, > and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.] > > We could just delete "To help kick-start that cross-cutting > consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad" and > suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > mandate. Could also reference and support the APC/COE/UNECE > initiative as a building block for such an effort. > > If you want to re-pitch a rights framework, it would be better to do > so in under, "7. Do you have any other comments?" In that context, it > might also be good to cite examples that pertain to global Internet > governance, rather than national policy (or alternatively, to contend > that relevant issues of national policy like universal access should > be subjects of GIG, although then presumably we'd have to say how). > > Best, > > Bill > > On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives >> of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 >> December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the >> Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to >> build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented >> Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and >> share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities >> and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their >> sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised >> on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations >> and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human >> Rights. >> >> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human >> Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and >> principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a >> minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation >> of the IGF. >> >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to >> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in >> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of >> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. >> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, >> and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality >> discussions. >> >> The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion >> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each >> other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should >> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 09:02:07 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:32:07 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review In-Reply-To: References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com> I believe this is now adapted to resolve Jeremy and Ian's concerns: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including the IGF Remote Hubs. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you? > > What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", > because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more than > "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-) > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 13 09:12:08 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:42:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5B32A8.9040406@itforchange.net> Bill Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles have considerably changed subsequent to my email from the just 'multi-lateral, transparent, democratic and multistakeholder' to include substantive aspects of '"should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism." I see it as a very very significant progress from my point of view, and would request all subsequent IGC statements to take note of this. You have asked me what i meant by 'self-selected'. You know that you (and IGC statements) have till now only spoken of the process related principles and not these substantive principles which are obviously very important. Thats self-selection :). Secondly, when I say all DoP is WSIS principles it is obvious that with regard to IG we will only be counting those which can be seen in relation to IG. (However i do read your statements of history of negotiations with interest.) When IG is directly referred to in detailing these principles so much the better, but I wouldnt hesitate to apply other principles in WSIS docs to IG, thats the idea of prefacing such summit docs with declaration of principles. I, as others from civil society did during the last MAG meeting, will push for a rights-based approach to IG as part of such WSIS principles taking from the relevant DoP text on rights. Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy here, and am spending time on this because I consider it an important discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end with text to the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just not respectful. parminder William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Ginger, >>> >>> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer >>> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the >>> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies >>> generally. >> Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked ' WSIS >> principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further clearer the >> current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS principles include DoP >> (Geneva declaration of principles) principles. To quote the paper >> >> "This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the >> Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the >> Information Society" >> > > That the questionnaire links to the Geneva Declaration is not > surprising since that's the first official document in which the > principles are agreed (unless you want to count earlier version in the > regional declarations etc). That doesn't mean that the WSIS > principles on IG are now understood to mean the entire DOP (covering > e.g. e-education, e-health, etc etc etc). Indeed, the second bit you > quote, "as contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the > Tunis Agenda," demonstrates the point. The entire Geneva DOP is not > contained in the TA. The WSIS principles on IG are, and they are > enunciated in a limited number of paragraphs. >> >> >> I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined >> construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in para >> 72 of TA to the four process issues - multilateral, transparent, >> democratic and multistakeholder - that you mention. > > I don't know what self-determined means, it's been pretty clear for > years what everyone's been talking about, as the transcripts of the > consultations etc would demonstrate. But I would agree with you that > people have often been selective in invoking the principles, depending > on their objectives and the particular matters under discussion. As > I've written elsewhere (piece in Wolfgang's power of ideas book), > > Paragraph 48 establishes guiding principles on the conduct of > governance processes, namely that, they "should be multilateral, > transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, > the private sector, civil society and international organizations." > The latter point is amplified by Paragraph 49's statement that > Internet governance, "should involve all stakeholders and relevant > intergovernmental and international organizations." Going further, > Paragraph 50 holds that Internet governance issues "should be > addressed in a coordinated manner." While this point is raised as a > preface to the call for the UN Secretary General to convene a Working > Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to study the issues, the need for > coordination was invoked often enough in the course of the WSIS > process to suggest that it stands as a generalizable principle as > well. Taken together, these prescriptions constitute what could be > called the procedural component of what came to be known as the "WSIS > Principles on Internet governance." In addition, Paragraphs 48-50 set > out a substantive component, i.e. that Internet governance "should > ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for > all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking > into account multilingualism." > > I think it's clear that the agreed principles on IG include both > procedural and substantive components, and the latter pertain directly > to the notion that IG should promote development. I'd guess you'd > agree with that. But this is very different from saying that the rest > of the DOP that is not on IG can be characterized as the WSIS > principles on IG. > >> The present state of discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position >> that WSIS principles basically means all of 'DoP plus' which includes >> the four principles that you mention. > > The MAG doesn't have a mandate to redefine or reinterpret > international agreements or rewrite the entire history of the WSIG/IGF > discussions. It has a mandate to program a conference, and in trying > to figure out where to place discussions on programs in order to > satisfy stakeholders has frequently taken some liberties with concepts > etc. Moreover, the discourse you refer to is of course contested, with > the Chinese saying one thing, others saying other things, etc. So if > some parties are actually contending that the principles on IG include > every DOP provision on every issue concerning the global information > society, rather than just the ones on IG, then with all due respect > this is pretty far from dispositive. Utterances made in program > committee meetings for international conferences are not authoritative. > >> In fact the compromise on the rights debate in the MAG was that >> rights will now get discussed under 'WSIS principles' section in IGF >> - 4. I consider it as a major step forward from a narrow >> 'process-oriented principles' approach that a a few in civil society >> want to exclusively take to a broad ' substantive principles' >> approach that was the real intent of TA and other WSIS documents. > > Both the procedural and substantive components can be viewed from a > rights perspective, although that would require a certain level of > conceptual precision. The text I was responding to was different in > scope. > > So...if you are suggesting that a caucus statement on the principles > should go beyond the procedural component (which was the focus of the > prior statement I referenced) and cover the substantive, we can > readily agree. If you're saying that every last bit of the DOP is > actually about IG and/or that this is true because some people said so > in a MAG meeting, let's just agree to disagree rather than subjecting > the list to one of our patented bilateral soliloquies :-) > > Cheers, > > Bill > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 13 09:18:58 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:48:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review In-Reply-To: <4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> <4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B3442.2010203@itforchange.net> Ginger, You had asked and I tried a draft of reply to question 1 too. You may want to look at it as well. (I sent an email earlier today) As for the draft below I cant see how the sentence 'So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”.' can be seen as a positive description of the IGF. The phrase ' all talk' is never used in a positive sense as per my admittedly limited knowledge of the language. also we need to comment on other subsections of para 72 detailing IGF's mandate , other than 72 (a) as well. parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > I believe this is now adapted to resolve Jeremy and Ian's concerns: > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order > to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. The > participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even > the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking > place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this > process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all > actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which > have not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is > heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are > already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and > seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, > including the IGF Remote Hubs. Since the fear of governmental > domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use > global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate > multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again > offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you? >> >> What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", >> because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more >> than "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-) >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 09:28:14 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:58:14 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review In-Reply-To: <4A5B3442.2010203@itforchange.net> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> <4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com> <4A5B3442.2010203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5B366E.4090205@gmail.com> Sorry, Parminder, you are right. I mixed my drafts. I will check and re-send with your notes incorporated, ok? I really appreciate your help, discussion and patience. Thanks, Ginger Parminder wrote: > Ginger, > > You had asked and I tried a draft of reply to question 1 too. You may > want to look at it as well. (I sent an email earlier today) > > As for the draft below I cant see how the sentence > > 'So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”.' > > can be seen as a positive description of the IGF. The phrase ' all > talk' is never used in a positive sense as per my admittedly limited > knowledge of the language. > > also we need to comment on other subsections of para 72 detailing > IGF's mandate , other than 72 (a) as well. > > parminder > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> I believe this is now adapted to resolve Jeremy and Ian's concerns: >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> >> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss >> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance >> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >> stability and development of the Internet. >> >> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take >> place. So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. >> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that >> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so >> that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all >> actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, >> which have not been adequately addressed. >> >> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >> processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is >> heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are >> already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and >> seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, >> including the IGF Remote Hubs. Since the fear of governmental >> domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use >> global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate >> multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again >> offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard. >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you? >>> >>> What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", >>> because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more >>> than "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-) >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 09:30:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:00:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: <4A5B32A8.9040406@itforchange.net> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net> <4A5B32A8.9040406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5B36F7.2030103@gmail.com> Bill, Parminder, everyone... I agree with Parminder--Bill, I do not think you should underestimate the importance of the topics and the value of these discussions for the rest of us, even if we do not intervene. Best, Ginger Parminder wrote: > Bill > > Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles have considerably > changed subsequent to my email from the just 'multi-lateral, > transparent, democratic and multistakeholder' to include substantive > aspects of '“should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, > facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning > of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism.” I see it as a > very very significant progress from my point of view, and would > request all subsequent IGC statements to take note of this. You have > asked me what i meant by 'self-selected'. You know that you (and IGC > statements) have till now only spoken of the process related > principles and not these substantive principles which are obviously > very important. Thats self-selection :). > > Secondly, when I say all DoP is WSIS principles it is obvious that > with regard to IG we will only be counting those which can be seen in > relation to IG. (However i do read your statements of history of > negotiations with interest.) When IG is directly referred to in > detailing these principles so much the better, but I wouldnt hesitate > to apply other principles in WSIS docs to IG, thats the idea of > prefacing such summit docs with declaration of principles. I, as > others from civil society did during the last MAG meeting, will push > for a rights-based approach to IG as part of such WSIS principles > taking from the relevant DoP text on rights. > > Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy > here, and am spending time on this because I consider it an important > discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end with text > to the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just not respectful. > > parminder > > > William Drake wrote: >> Hi Parminder >> >> On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Parminder wrote: >> >>> William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi Ginger, >>>> >>>> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer >>>> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the >>>> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies >>>> generally. >>> Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked ' >>> WSIS principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further >>> clearer the current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS >>> principles include DoP (Geneva declaration of principles) >>> principles. To quote the paper >>> >>> "This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the >>> Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the >>> Information Society" >>> >> >> That the questionnaire links to the Geneva Declaration is not >> surprising since that's the first official document in which the >> principles are agreed (unless you want to count earlier version in >> the regional declarations etc). That doesn't mean that the WSIS >> principles on IG are now understood to mean the entire DOP (covering >> e.g. e-education, e-health, etc etc etc). Indeed, the second bit you >> quote, "as contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the >> Tunis Agenda," demonstrates the point. The entire Geneva DOP is not >> contained in the TA. The WSIS principles on IG are, and they are >> enunciated in a limited number of paragraphs. >>> >>> >>> I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined >>> construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in >>> para 72 of TA to the four process issues - multilateral, >>> transparent, democratic and multistakeholder - that you mention. >> >> I don't know what self-determined means, it's been pretty clear for >> years what everyone's been talking about, as the transcripts of the >> consultations etc would demonstrate. But I would agree with you that >> people have often been selective in invoking the principles, >> depending on their objectives and the particular matters under >> discussion. As I've written elsewhere (piece in Wolfgang's power of >> ideas book), >> >> Paragraph 48 establishes guiding principles on the conduct of >> governance processes, namely that, they “should be multilateral, >> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >> the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” >> The latter point is amplified by Paragraph 49’s statement that >> Internet governance, “should involve all stakeholders and relevant >> intergovernmental and international organizations.” Going further, >> Paragraph 50 holds that Internet governance issues “should be >> addressed in a coordinated manner.” While this point is raised as a >> preface to the call for the UN Secretary General to convene a Working >> Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to study the issues, the need for >> coordination was invoked often enough in the course of the WSIS >> process to suggest that it stands as a generalizable principle as >> well. Taken together, these prescriptions constitute what could be >> called the procedural component of what came to be known as the “WSIS >> Principles on Internet governance.” In addition, Paragraphs 48-50 set >> out a substantive component, i.e. that Internet governance “should >> ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for >> all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, >> taking into account multilingualism.” >> >> I think it's clear that the agreed principles on IG include both >> procedural and substantive components, and the latter pertain >> directly to the notion that IG should promote development. I'd guess >> you'd agree with that. But this is very different from saying that >> the rest of the DOP that is not on IG can be characterized as the >> WSIS principles on IG. >> >>> The present state of discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position >>> that WSIS principles basically means all of 'DoP plus' which >>> includes the four principles that you mention. >> >> The MAG doesn't have a mandate to redefine or reinterpret >> international agreements or rewrite the entire history of the >> WSIG/IGF discussions. It has a mandate to program a conference, and >> in trying to figure out where to place discussions on programs in >> order to satisfy stakeholders has frequently taken some liberties >> with concepts etc. Moreover, the discourse you refer to is of course >> contested, with the Chinese saying one thing, others saying other >> things, etc. So if some parties are actually contending that the >> principles on IG include every DOP provision on every issue >> concerning the global information society, rather than just the ones >> on IG, then with all due respect this is pretty far from dispositive. >> Utterances made in program committee meetings for international >> conferences are not authoritative. >> >>> In fact the compromise on the rights debate in the MAG was that >>> rights will now get discussed under 'WSIS principles' section in IGF >>> - 4. I consider it as a major step forward from a narrow >>> 'process-oriented principles' approach that a a few in civil society >>> want to exclusively take to a broad ' substantive principles' >>> approach that was the real intent of TA and other WSIS documents. >> >> Both the procedural and substantive components can be viewed from a >> rights perspective, although that would require a certain level of >> conceptual precision. The text I was responding to was different in >> scope. >> >> So...if you are suggesting that a caucus statement on the principles >> should go beyond the procedural component (which was the focus of the >> prior statement I referenced) and cover the substantive, we can >> readily agree. If you're saying that every last bit of the DOP is >> actually about IG and/or that this is true because some people said >> so in a MAG meeting, let's just agree to disagree rather than >> subjecting the list to one of our patented bilateral soliloquies :-) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 10:39:34 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:09:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review In-Reply-To: <4A5B3442.2010203@itforchange.net> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4AC5B414-7F7D-4D18-AC12-A0B586911F47@ciroap.org> <4A59F37C.6060505@gmail.com> <4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com> <4A5B3442.2010203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5B4726.6040109@gmail.com> Great text Parminder, Thanks!!! Updated Q1 with Parminder's text, for comment. 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged from how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at least three areas 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models than exclusively statist ones. 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Parminder wrote: > Ginger, > > You had asked and I tried a draft of reply to question 1 too. You may > want to look at it as well. (I sent an email earlier today) > > As for the draft below I cant see how the sentence > > 'So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”.' > > can be seen as a positive description of the IGF. The phrase ' all > talk' is never used in a positive sense as per my admittedly limited > knowledge of the language. > > also we need to comment on other subsections of para 72 detailing > IGF's mandate , other than 72 (a) as well. > > parminder > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> I believe this is now adapted to resolve Jeremy and Ian's concerns: >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> >> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss >> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance >> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >> stability and development of the Internet. >> >> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take >> place. So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. >> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that >> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so >> that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all >> actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, >> which have not been adequately addressed. >> >> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >> processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is >> heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are >> already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and >> seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, >> including the IGF Remote Hubs. Since the fear of governmental >> domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use >> global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate >> multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again >> offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard. >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you? >>> >>> What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", >>> because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more >>> than "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-) >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 10:55:58 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:25:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for financial reasons, the present participants from Government are not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well-received for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*) * and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of participation. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Ginger > > Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the complete > questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but don't really have a > lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a few hours for a short trip, > will find some time to work tomorrow as well, but not tonight. > > Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an independent > proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but preferred not to. > > Shiva. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hi Shiva, >> >> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, and Ian, as >> well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied with the wording on the >> funding concept. You are welcome to continue the discussion and see if you >> can reach a consensus on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is >> happy, the statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the thread >> on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete questionnaire draft, and tell >> us what you think? >> >> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >> >> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >>> Hello Ginger >>> >>> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather than as an IGC >>> statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it also apply to Q3? >>> >>> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and the >>> misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really feel that the entire >>> statement has to be dropped as comment from IGC? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >> gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this >>> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we >>> could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is >>> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the August >>> deadline? >>> >>> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would >>> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>> >>> A quick reply and a little more later. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >>> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>> >] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >> >; Michael Gurstein >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's >>> proposed paras >>> >>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein >>> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation >>> substantially and significantly to further enhance the >>> quality of programs with greater diversity of >>> participation" sounds better? >>> YES... >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are two aspects to be considered in this >>> regard: a) >>> The absence or >>> non-participation of some of the world's most renowned >>> Civil Society opinion >>> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are >>> otherwise >>> committed to >>> social and other governance issues off IGF are not >>> seen at >>> the IGF; >>> Governments are not represented on a level high enough >>> >>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL >>> SOCIETY >>> OPINION LEADERS" >>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >>> PROBABLY MORE >>> INTERNAL >>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY >>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >>> BE. >>> >>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR >>> ARE WE >>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR >>> ARE WE >>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>> HAVE A >>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE >>> CATEGORIES IS >>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY >>> UNDER >>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>> >>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE >>> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>> ABOUT >>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>> >>> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>> >>> >>> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >>> interpretation of >>> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the >>> present >>> participants constitute a complete, representative, and >>> ultimate group ? NO, BUT I'M HAVING >>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>> >>> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; >>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I >>> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point intended to >>> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. Looks like >>> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >>> >>> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO >>> ME TO BE RATHER >>> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK >>> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT >>> THEM AND >>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND. >>> >>> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in >>> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing >>> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a >>> participant from India, I have faith in and respect for my >>> country but I believe that in an International context I am at >>> least a little wider than a national. I have been inspired by >>> teachers who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a >>> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths implies >>> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global. >>> >>> (Will come back this point and write more in response to what >>> you have written a little later) >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>> >>> MBG >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: igf inputs to Q6 of the Review process.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49571 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 11:18:10 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:48:10 -0430 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from others as well: [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by Ginger] The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be improved. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of participation. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, > > Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This > mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience > of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text > as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) > > Thank you > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and > significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with > greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be > considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants > representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified > individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that > IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and > include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment > and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society > causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social > and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all > governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for > financial reasons, the present participants from Government are > not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in > parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly > relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF > do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. > This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but > availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different > classes of participants may help improve participation by those > not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some > funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, > but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible > costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, > organizations and individual participants) would be several times > that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing > the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist > estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a > marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and > participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true > cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > participation are compromised. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends > that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations > supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well > funded non-governmental and international organizations and the > United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable > travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel > speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are > required to be well-received for participation), full and partial > fellowships to a large number of participants with special > attention to participants from unrepresented categories > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant > segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if > there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse > opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to > the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be > built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to > a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions > about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply > that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic > conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the > sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something > larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF > will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, > International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no > implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* > and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. > It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have > significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of > participation. > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the > complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but > don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a > few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow > as well, but not tonight. > > Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an > independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but > preferred not to. > > Shiva. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Hi Shiva, > > I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, > and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied > with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to > continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus > on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the > statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the > thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete > questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? > > Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > > Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. > > Best, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather > than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it > also apply to Q3? > > There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and > the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really > feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as > comment from IGC? > > Thanks. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque > > >> wrote: > > Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy > about this > concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I > wonder if we > could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is > submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the > August > deadline? > > In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, > which would > give you more freedom to make your point. Is that > acceptable to you? > > Regards, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Michael Gurstein > > A quick reply and a little more later. > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > > > > >>> wrote: > > Hi, > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > > > >>] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >>; Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: > Comments on Siva's > proposed paras > > Hello Michael Gurstein, > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael > Gurstein > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > "The Internet Governance Caucus calls > upon the IGF > Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and > participation > substantially and significantly to > further enhance the > quality of programs with greater > diversity of > participation" sounds better? > YES... > Thanks. > > > > There are two aspects to be considered > in this > regard: a) > The absence or > non-participation of some of the world's > most renowned > Civil Society opinion > leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders > who are > otherwise > committed to > social and other governance issues off > IGF are not > seen at > the IGF; > Governments are not represented on a > level high enough > > HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY > "RENOWNED CIVIL > SOCIETY > OPINION LEADERS" > (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND > PROBABLY MORE > INTERNAL > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT > AND CERTAINLY > NEITHER WE NOR THE > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO > IDENTIFY WHO THESE > "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > BE. > > AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > FOLKS FROM CIVIL > SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP > POSITIONS, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG > ISSUES, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING FOR LEADERS > OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS > ORGANIZATIONS WHO > HAVE A > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES > (EACH OF THESE > CATEGORIES IS > PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED > AMBIGUOUSLY > UNDER > YOUR STATEMENT. > > IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT > IMPORTANCE > THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF > NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE > SECRETARIAT CAN DO > ABOUT > THAT AND SIMILARLY > WITH GOVERNMENTS. > > I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative > interpretation of > such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert > that the > present > participants constitute a complete, > representative, and > ultimate group ? NO, BUT > I'M HAVING > TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA > SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi > Klein; > Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds > familiar, but I > wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point > intended to > bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. > Looks like > you are reading between the lines of what I write. > > HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET > WOULD SEEM TO > ME TO BE RATHER > MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT > LEAST COULD TALK > WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG > ISSUES IMPACT > THEM AND > THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON > THE GROUND. > > Again an Indian reference - you have used the word > "Sewa" in > your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone > pushing > the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in > India, a > participant from India, I have faith in and respect > for my > country but I believe that in an International > context I am at > least a little wider than a national. I have been > inspired by > teachers who taught me in my school days that > "patriotism is a > prejudice" which is profound thinking which in > depths implies > that one must be beyond being patriotic and be > rather global. > > (Will come back this point and write more in > response to what > you have written a little later) > > Thank you. > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > MBG > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > M > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jul 13 11:27:14 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:27:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> Ginger Paque wrote: > Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at compromise. > However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the > following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from > others as well: > > [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by Ginger] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the > quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. I don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF Secretariat to > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the lack of such funds. jeanette > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other > governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are > represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not > represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to > be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various > categories of travel grants for participants may help improve > participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF > already has made some funds available for representation from Less > Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in > the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible > and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is > already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel > speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of > the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > participation could be improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the > IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from > business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants > to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and > partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special > attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented > geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to > those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to > the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is > especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the > positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant > from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the > positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund > large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and > diversity of participation. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >> >> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This >> mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience >> of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text >> as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) >> >> Thank you >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and >> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with >> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be >> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants >> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that >> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and >> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment >> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social >> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for >> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are >> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in >> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly >> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF >> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. >> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but >> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different >> classes of participants may help improve participation by those >> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some >> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a >> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and >> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true >> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >> participation are compromised. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations >> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well >> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the >> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable >> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel >> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are >> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial >> fellowships to a large number of participants with special >> attention to participants from unrepresented categories >> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >> there is an individual need ). >> >> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse >> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to >> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be >> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to >> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply >> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic >> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the >> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something >> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF >> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, >> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no >> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* >> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. >> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have >> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >> participation. >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the >> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but >> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a >> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow >> as well, but not tonight. >> >> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an >> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but >> preferred not to. >> >> Shiva. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hi Shiva, >> >> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, >> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied >> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to >> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus >> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the >> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the >> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete >> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? >> >> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >> >> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather >> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it >> also apply to Q3? >> >> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and >> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really >> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as >> comment from IGC? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >> >> >> wrote: >> >> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy >> about this >> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I >> wonder if we >> could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is >> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the >> August >> deadline? >> >> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, >> which would >> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that >> acceptable to you? >> >> Regards, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein >> >> A quick reply and a little more later. >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >> >> > >> > > >>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >> > > >> > > >>] >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > > >> > >> > >>; Michael Gurstein >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: >> Comments on Siva's >> proposed paras >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein, >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael >> Gurstein >> > > > >> > > >>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls >> upon the IGF >> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and >> participation >> substantially and significantly to >> further enhance the >> quality of programs with greater >> diversity of >> participation" sounds better? >> YES... >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> There are two aspects to be considered >> in this >> regard: a) >> The absence or >> non-participation of some of the world's >> most renowned >> Civil Society opinion >> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders >> who are >> otherwise >> committed to >> social and other governance issues off >> IGF are not >> seen at >> the IGF; >> Governments are not represented on a >> level high enough >> >> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY >> "RENOWNED CIVIL >> SOCIETY >> OPINION LEADERS" >> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >> PROBABLY MORE >> INTERNAL >> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT >> AND CERTAINLY >> NEITHER WE NOR THE >> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO >> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >> BE. >> >> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP >> POSITIONS, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG >> ISSUES, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS >> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >> HAVE A >> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >> (EACH OF THESE >> CATEGORIES IS >> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED >> AMBIGUOUSLY >> UNDER >> YOUR STATEMENT. >> >> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT >> IMPORTANCE >> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE >> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >> ABOUT >> THAT AND SIMILARLY >> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >> >> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >> >> >> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >> interpretation of >> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert >> that the >> present >> participants constitute a complete, >> representative, and >> ultimate group ? NO, BUT >> I'M HAVING >> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >> >> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi >> Klein; >> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds >> familiar, but I >> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point >> intended to >> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. >> Looks like >> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >> >> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET >> WOULD SEEM TO >> ME TO BE RATHER >> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT >> LEAST COULD TALK >> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG >> ISSUES IMPACT >> THEM AND >> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON >> THE GROUND. >> >> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word >> "Sewa" in >> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone >> pushing >> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in >> India, a >> participant from India, I have faith in and respect >> for my >> country but I believe that in an International >> context I am at >> least a little wider than a national. I have been >> inspired by >> teachers who taught me in my school days that >> "patriotism is a >> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in >> depths implies >> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be >> rather global. >> >> (Will come back this point and write more in >> response to what >> you have written a little later) >> >> Thank you. >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >> >> MBG >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> M >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 11:43:59 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:43:59 -0400 Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hmmm... The California riposte... Jurisdictions are deluded/bamboozled/blackmailed into denying themselves sources of revenue (particularly by those who don't like the way that that revenue may currently or in the future be spent). Then when the challenge comes to spend some money, the jurisdiction (or their supporters -- usually the supporters of the status quo), can argue but there is no money to do what should be done... The result is that the things that should be done, but which require money to do them never get done and the status quo drifts merrily along... (at least until the banks stop cashing the IOU's or whatever... M -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Michael Gurstein Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras Ginger Paque wrote: > Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at > compromise. > However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the > following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from > others as well: > > [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by > Ginger] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the > quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. I don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF Secretariat to > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the lack of such funds. jeanette > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other > governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are > represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not > represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to > be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various > categories of travel grants for participants may help improve > participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF > already has made some funds available for representation from Less > Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in > the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible > and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is > already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel > speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of > the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > participation could be improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that > the > IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from > business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants > to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and > partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special > attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented > geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to > those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to > the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is > especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the > positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant > from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the > positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund > large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and > diversity of participation. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >> >> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This >> mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience >> of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text >> as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) >> >> Thank you >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and >> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with >> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be >> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants >> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that >> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and >> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment >> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social >> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for >> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are >> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in >> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly >> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF >> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. >> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but >> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different >> classes of participants may help improve participation by those >> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some >> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a >> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and >> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true >> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >> participation are compromised. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations >> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well >> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the >> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable >> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel >> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are >> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial >> fellowships to a large number of participants with special >> attention to participants from unrepresented categories >> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >> there is an individual need ). >> >> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse >> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to >> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be >> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to >> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply >> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic >> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the >> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something >> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF >> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, >> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no >> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* >> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. >> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have >> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >> participation. >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the >> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but >> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a >> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow >> as well, but not tonight. >> >> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an >> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but >> preferred not to. >> >> Shiva. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hi Shiva, >> >> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, >> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied >> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to >> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus >> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the >> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the >> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete >> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? >> >> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >> >> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather >> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it >> also apply to Q3? >> >> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and >> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really >> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as >> comment from IGC? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy >> about this >> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I >> wonder if we >> could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is >> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the >> August >> deadline? >> >> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, >> which would >> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that >> acceptable to you? >> >> Regards, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein >> >> A quick reply and a little more later. >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >> >> > >> > > >>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >> > > >> > > >>] >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > > >> > >> > >>; Michael Gurstein >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: >> Comments on Siva's >> proposed paras >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein, >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael >> Gurstein >> > > > >> > > >>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls >> upon the IGF >> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and >> participation >> substantially and significantly to >> further enhance the >> quality of programs with greater >> diversity of >> participation" sounds better? >> YES... >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> There are two aspects to be considered >> in this >> regard: a) >> The absence or >> non-participation of some of the world's >> most renowned >> Civil Society opinion >> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders >> who are >> otherwise >> committed to >> social and other governance issues off >> IGF are not >> seen at >> the IGF; >> Governments are not represented on a >> level high enough >> >> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY >> "RENOWNED CIVIL >> SOCIETY >> OPINION LEADERS" >> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >> PROBABLY MORE >> INTERNAL >> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT >> AND CERTAINLY >> NEITHER WE NOR THE >> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO >> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >> BE. >> >> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP >> POSITIONS, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG >> ISSUES, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS >> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >> HAVE A >> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >> (EACH OF THESE >> CATEGORIES IS >> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED >> AMBIGUOUSLY >> UNDER >> YOUR STATEMENT. >> >> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT >> IMPORTANCE >> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE >> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >> ABOUT >> THAT AND SIMILARLY >> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >> >> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >> >> >> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >> interpretation of >> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert >> that the >> present >> participants constitute a complete, >> representative, and >> ultimate group ? NO, BUT >> I'M HAVING >> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >> >> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi >> Klein; >> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds >> familiar, but I >> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point >> intended to >> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. >> Looks like >> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >> >> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET >> WOULD SEEM TO >> ME TO BE RATHER >> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT >> LEAST COULD TALK >> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG >> ISSUES IMPACT >> THEM AND >> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON >> THE GROUND. >> >> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word >> "Sewa" in >> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone >> pushing >> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in >> India, a >> participant from India, I have faith in and respect >> for my >> country but I believe that in an International >> context I am at >> least a little wider than a national. I have been >> inspired by >> teachers who taught me in my school days that >> "patriotism is a >> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in >> depths implies >> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be >> rather global. >> >> (Will come back this point and write more in >> response to what >> you have written a little later) >> >> Thank you. >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >> >> MBG >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> M >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 11:59:38 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:59:38 -0400 Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <62BC648B0CA34D1E8478C54AAD4344DD@userPC> I don't think the following: "The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions." ... is an appropriate replacement for: "we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development." The latter is admittedly a mouthful but the problem is that these folks for the most part weren't included in WSIS, the IGF to date and the first statement presented isn't likely to provide much support for their specific participation in any future activities of the IGF either. As for the rest I'm not sure that beyond stating the principle that we need to go into so much detail on explanations, rationales and modalities... I would have thought that a couple of sentences or one paragraph would suffice. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:18 AM To: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Ginger Paque' Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from others as well: [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by Ginger] The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be improved. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of participation. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, > > Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This > mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience > of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text > as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) > > Thank you > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and > significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with > greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be > considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants > representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified > individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that > IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and > include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment > and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society > causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social > and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all > governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for > financial reasons, the present participants from Government are > not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in > parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly > relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF > do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. > This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but > availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different > classes of participants may help improve participation by those > not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some > funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, > but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible > costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, > organizations and individual participants) would be several times > that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing > the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist > estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a > marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and > participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true > cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > participation are compromised. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends > that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations > supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well > funded non-governmental and international organizations and the > United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable > travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel > speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are > required to be well-received for participation), full and partial > fellowships to a large number of participants with special > attention to participants from unrepresented categories > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant > segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if > there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse > opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to > the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be > built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to > a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions > about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply > that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic > conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the > sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something > larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF > will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, > International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no > implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* > and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. > It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have > significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of > participation. > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the > complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but > don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a > few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow > as well, but not tonight. > > Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an > independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but > preferred not to. > > Shiva. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Hi Shiva, > > I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, > and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied > with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to > continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus > on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the > statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the > thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete > questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? > > Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > > Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. > > Best, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather > than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it > also apply to Q3? > > There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and > the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really > feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as > comment from IGC? > > Thanks. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque > > >> > wrote: > > Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy > about this > concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I > wonder if we > could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is > submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the > August > deadline? > > In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, > which would > give you more freedom to make your point. Is that > acceptable to you? > > Regards, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Michael Gurstein > > A quick reply and a little more later. > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > > > > >>> wrote: > > Hi, > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > > > >>] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >>; Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: > Comments on Siva's > proposed paras > > Hello Michael Gurstein, > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael > Gurstein > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > "The Internet Governance Caucus calls > upon the IGF > Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and > participation > substantially and significantly to > further enhance the > quality of programs with greater > diversity of > participation" sounds better? > YES... > Thanks. > > > > There are two aspects to be considered > in this > regard: a) > The absence or > non-participation of some of the world's > most renowned > Civil Society opinion > leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders > who are > otherwise > committed to > social and other governance issues off > IGF are not > seen at > the IGF; > Governments are not represented on a > level high enough > > HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY > "RENOWNED CIVIL > SOCIETY > OPINION LEADERS" > (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND > PROBABLY MORE > INTERNAL > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT > AND CERTAINLY > NEITHER WE NOR THE > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO > IDENTIFY WHO THESE > "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > BE. > > AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > FOLKS FROM CIVIL > SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP > POSITIONS, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG > ISSUES, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING FOR LEADERS > OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS > ORGANIZATIONS WHO > HAVE A > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES > (EACH OF THESE > CATEGORIES IS > PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED > AMBIGUOUSLY > UNDER > YOUR STATEMENT. > > IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT > IMPORTANCE > THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF > NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE > SECRETARIAT CAN DO > ABOUT > THAT AND SIMILARLY > WITH GOVERNMENTS. > > I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative > interpretation of > such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert > that the > present > participants constitute a complete, > representative, and > ultimate group ? NO, BUT > I'M HAVING > TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA > SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi > Klein; > Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds > familiar, but I > wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point > intended to > bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. > Looks like > you are reading between the lines of what I write. > > HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET > WOULD SEEM TO > ME TO BE RATHER > MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT > LEAST COULD TALK > WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG > ISSUES IMPACT > THEM AND > THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON > THE GROUND. > > Again an Indian reference - you have used the word > "Sewa" in > your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone > pushing > the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in > India, a > participant from India, I have faith in and respect > for my > country but I believe that in an International > context I am at > least a little wider than a national. I have been > inspired by > teachers who taught me in my school days that > "patriotism is a > prejudice" which is profound thinking which in > depths implies > that one must be beyond being patriotic and be > rather global. > > (Will come back this point and write more in > response to what > you have written a little later) > > Thank you. > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > MBG > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > M > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 12:06:44 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:36:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at compromise. > However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the > following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from others > as well: Thanks. This looks quite agreeable. Shiva. > > > [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by Ginger] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the > quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified > individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF > participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society > participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF > arena on various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who are otherwise > committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and > not all governments are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees > of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. > This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability > of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve > participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already > has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed > Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the > IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual > participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF > Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. > If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, > it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With an increment in > funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would > amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of > panels and the diversity of participation could be improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF > should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, > governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations > and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead > participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial > fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to > participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions > and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, > represented regions if there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to the > IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially > recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or content > proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with > stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken). It is > recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant > impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of participation. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >> >> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This mail >> is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience of those >> whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text as a PDF file >> which would show the highlighted changes ) >> >> Thank you >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and >> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with >> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be >> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants >> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that >> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and >> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment >> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social >> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for >> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are >> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in >> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly >> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF >> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. >> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but >> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different >> classes of participants may help improve participation by those >> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some >> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a >> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and >> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true >> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >> participation are compromised. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations >> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well >> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the >> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable >> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel >> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are >> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial >> fellowships to a large number of participants with special >> attention to participants from unrepresented categories >> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >> there is an individual need ). >> >> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse >> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to >> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be >> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to >> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply >> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic >> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the >> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something >> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF >> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, >> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no >> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* >> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. >> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have >> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >> participation. >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >> isolatedn at gmail.com > wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the >> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but >> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a >> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow >> as well, but not tonight. >> >> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an >> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but >> preferred not to. >> >> Shiva. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hi Shiva, >> >> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, >> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied >> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to >> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus >> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the >> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the >> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete >> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? >> >> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >> >> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather >> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it >> also apply to Q3? >> >> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and >> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really >> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as >> comment from IGC? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >> >> >> wrote: >> >> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy >> about this >> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I >> wonder if we >> could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is >> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the >> August >> deadline? >> >> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, >> which would >> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that >> acceptable to you? >> >> Regards, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein >> >> A quick reply and a little more later. >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >> >> > >> > > >>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >> > > >> > > >>] >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > > >> > >> > >>; Michael Gurstein >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: >> Comments on Siva's >> proposed paras >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein, >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael >> Gurstein >> > > > >> > > >>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls >> upon the IGF >> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and >> participation >> substantially and significantly to >> further enhance the >> quality of programs with greater >> diversity of >> participation" sounds better? >> YES... >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> There are two aspects to be considered >> in this >> regard: a) >> The absence or >> non-participation of some of the world's >> most renowned >> Civil Society opinion >> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders >> who are >> otherwise >> committed to >> social and other governance issues off >> IGF are not >> seen at >> the IGF; >> Governments are not represented on a >> level high enough >> >> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY >> "RENOWNED CIVIL >> SOCIETY >> OPINION LEADERS" >> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >> PROBABLY MORE >> INTERNAL >> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT >> AND CERTAINLY >> NEITHER WE NOR THE >> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO >> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >> BE. >> >> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP >> POSITIONS, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG >> ISSUES, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS >> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >> HAVE A >> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >> (EACH OF THESE >> CATEGORIES IS >> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED >> AMBIGUOUSLY >> UNDER >> YOUR STATEMENT. >> >> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT >> IMPORTANCE >> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE >> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >> ABOUT >> THAT AND SIMILARLY >> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >> >> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >> >> >> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >> interpretation of >> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert >> that the >> present >> participants constitute a complete, >> representative, and >> ultimate group ? NO, BUT >> I'M HAVING >> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >> >> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi >> Klein; >> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds >> familiar, but I >> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point >> intended to >> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. >> Looks like >> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >> >> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET >> WOULD SEEM TO >> ME TO BE RATHER >> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT >> LEAST COULD TALK >> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG >> ISSUES IMPACT >> THEM AND >> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON >> THE GROUND. >> >> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word >> "Sewa" in >> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone >> pushing >> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in >> India, a >> participant from India, I have faith in and respect >> for my >> country but I believe that in an International >> context I am at >> least a little wider than a national. I have been >> inspired by >> teachers who taught me in my school days that >> "patriotism is a >> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in >> depths implies >> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be >> rather global. >> >> (Will come back this point and write more in >> response to what >> you have written a little later) >> >> Thank you. >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >> >> MBG >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> M >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 12:08:47 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:38:47 +0530 Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed In-Reply-To: References: <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hello Michael Gurstein I agree with your remarks. A better funded IGF would be stronger and more purposeful, so I feel that IGC should make this statement. Thanks Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Hmmm... The California riposte... > > Jurisdictions are deluded/bamboozled/blackmailed into denying themselves > sources of revenue (particularly by those who don't like the way that that > revenue may currently or in the future be spent). > > Then when the challenge comes to spend some money, the jurisdiction (or > their supporters -- usually the supporters of the status quo), can argue > but > there is no money to do what should be done... > > The result is that the things that should be done, but which require money > to do them never get done and the status quo drifts merrily along... (at > least until the banks stop cashing the IOU's or whatever... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:27 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Cc: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Michael Gurstein > Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed > paras > > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at > > compromise. > > However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the > > following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from > > others as well: > > > > [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by > > Ginger] > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > > substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the > > quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. > > The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. I > don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF Secretariat to > > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the > lack of such funds. > > jeanette > > > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > > Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other > > governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are > > represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not > > represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to > > be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various > > categories of travel grants for participants may help improve > > participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF > > already has made some funds available for representation from Less > > Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in > > the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible > > and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is > > already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel > > speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of > > the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > > participation could be improved. > > > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that > > the > > IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from > > business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > > organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants > > to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and > > partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special > > attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented > > geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to > > those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need > ). > > > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to > > the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is > > especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the > > positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant > > from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the > > positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund > > large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and > > diversity of participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, > >> > >> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This > >> mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience > >> of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text > >> as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) > >> > >> Thank you > >> > >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> > >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > >> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and > >> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with > >> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be > >> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants > >> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified > >> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that > >> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and > >> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment > >> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society > >> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social > >> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all > >> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for > >> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are > >> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in > >> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly > >> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF > >> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. > >> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but > >> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different > >> classes of participants may help improve participation by those > >> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some > >> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, > >> but such funding achieves a limited objective. > >> > >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible > >> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, > >> organizations and individual participants) would be several times > >> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing > >> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist > >> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it > >> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a > >> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and > >> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true > >> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > >> participation are compromised. > >> > >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends > >> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations > >> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well > >> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the > >> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable > >> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel > >> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are > >> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial > >> fellowships to a large number of participants with special > >> attention to participants from unrepresented categories > >> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant > >> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if > >> there is an individual need ). > >> > >> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse > >> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to > >> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be > >> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to > >> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions > >> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply > >> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic > >> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the > >> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something > >> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF > >> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, > >> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no > >> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* > >> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. > >> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have > >> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of > >> participation. > >> > >> > >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > >> > >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> > wrote: > >> > >> Hello Ginger > >> > >> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the > >> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but > >> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a > >> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow > >> as well, but not tonight. > >> > >> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an > >> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but > >> preferred not to. > >> > >> Shiva. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Shiva, > >> > >> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, > >> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied > >> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to > >> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus > >> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the > >> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the > >> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete > >> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? > >> > >> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > >> > >> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. > >> > >> Best, > >> Ginger > >> > >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> > >> Hello Ginger > >> > >> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather > >> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it > >> also apply to Q3? > >> > >> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and > >> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really > >> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as > >> comment from IGC? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque > >> > >> >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy > >> about this > >> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I > >> wonder if we > >> could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is > >> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the > >> August > >> deadline? > >> > >> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, > >> which would > >> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that > >> acceptable to you? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ginger > >> > >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> > >> Hello Michael Gurstein > >> > >> A quick reply and a little more later. > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > >> > >> > > >> >> >> >>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > >> >> > > >> >> >> >>] > >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM > >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >>; Michael Gurstein > >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: > >> Comments on Siva's > >> proposed paras > >> > >> Hello Michael Gurstein, > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael > >> Gurstein > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls > >> upon the IGF > >> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and > >> participation > >> substantially and significantly to > >> further enhance the > >> quality of programs with greater > >> diversity of > >> participation" sounds better? > >> YES... > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > >> There are two aspects to be considered > >> in this > >> regard: a) > >> The absence or > >> non-participation of some of the world's > >> most renowned > >> Civil Society opinion > >> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders > >> who are > >> otherwise > >> committed to > >> social and other governance issues off > >> IGF are not > >> seen at > >> the IGF; > >> Governments are not represented on a > >> level high enough > >> > >> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY > >> "RENOWNED CIVIL > >> SOCIETY > >> OPINION LEADERS" > >> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO > AND > >> PROBABLY MORE > >> INTERNAL > >> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT > >> AND CERTAINLY > >> NEITHER WE NOR THE > >> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO > >> IDENTIFY WHO THESE > >> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > >> BE. > >> > >> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL > >> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > >> FOLKS FROM CIVIL > >> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP > >> POSITIONS, OR > >> ARE WE > >> LOOKING FOR CIVIL > >> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG > >> ISSUES, OR > >> ARE WE > >> LOOKING FOR LEADERS > >> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS > >> ORGANIZATIONS WHO > >> HAVE A > >> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES > >> (EACH OF THESE > >> CATEGORIES IS > >> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED > >> AMBIGUOUSLY > >> UNDER > >> YOUR STATEMENT. > >> > >> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT > >> IMPORTANCE > >> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF > >> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE > >> SECRETARIAT CAN DO > >> ABOUT > >> THAT AND SIMILARLY > >> WITH GOVERNMENTS. > >> > >> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... > >> > >> > >> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative > >> interpretation of > >> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert > >> that the > >> present > >> participants constitute a complete, > >> representative, and > >> ultimate group ? NO, BUT > >> I'M HAVING > >> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA > >> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > >> > >> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi > >> Klein; > >> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds > >> familiar, but I > >> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point > >> intended to > >> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. > >> Looks like > >> you are reading between the lines of what I write. > >> > >> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET > >> WOULD SEEM TO > >> ME TO BE RATHER > >> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT > >> LEAST COULD TALK > >> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG > >> ISSUES IMPACT > >> THEM AND > >> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON > >> THE GROUND. > >> > >> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word > >> "Sewa" in > >> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone > >> pushing > >> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in > >> India, a > >> participant from India, I have faith in and respect > >> for my > >> country but I believe that in an International > >> context I am at > >> least a little wider than a national. I have been > >> inspired by > >> teachers who taught me in my school days that > >> "patriotism is a > >> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in > >> depths implies > >> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be > >> rather global. > >> > >> (Will come back this point and write more in > >> response to what > >> you have written a little later) > >> > >> Thank you. > >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > >> > >> MBG > >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> > >> M > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Jul 13 12:11:50 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:11:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: <4A5B32A8.9040406@itforchange.net> References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net> <4A5B32A8.9040406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi On Jul 13, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Parminder wrote: > Bill > > Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles have considerably > changed subsequent to my email Yes, I wrote a paper two years ago because of an email you wrote two hours ago. Rather prescient, no? ;-) > from the just 'multi-lateral, transparent, democratic and > multistakeholder' to include substantive aspects of '“should ensure > an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all > and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking > into account multilingualism.” I see it as a very very significant > progress from my point of view, and would request all subsequent IGC > statements to take note of this. You have asked me what i meant by > 'self-selected'. You know that you (and IGC statements) have > till now only spoken of the process related principles and not > these substantive principles which are obviously very important. > Thats self-selection :). It is? I thought self-selection means one selects oneself to something. That seems a different thing from saying that when I, IGC, APC or anyone else have advocated procedural assessments and reforms we referenced in support the part of the WSIS principles dealing with procedural assessments and reforms. On the substantive/development side, the principles are arguably less systematic and coherent, an artifact of the negotiation process and phrases particular governments wanted in. But one can argue that taken together they reflect a normative stance that IG should promote development, even if there's no agreement on exactly what that means or how it could be achieved. (Of course, others could argue that I'm making an undue interpretive stretch, but I think it's fair to read the phrases in light of the legislative history, as it were.) Hence, I've argued for a couple years that development has been given short shrift and should be central to the IGF's focus, have organized development agenda workshops on that basis, etc. > Secondly, when I say all DoP is WSIS principles it is obvious that > with regard to IG we will only be counting those which can be seen > in relation to IG. (However i do read your statements of history of > negotiations with interest.) When IG is directly referred to in > detailing these principles so much the better, but I wouldnt > hesitate to apply other principles in WSIS docs to IG, thats the > idea of prefacing such summit docs with declaration of principles. I agree that there are other sections in the DOP that could be seen as relevant to IG, even if the governments who negotiated them didn't frame or even see them as such. But that's different from conflating the entire DOP with the IG principles. > I, as others from civil society did during the last MAG meeting, > will push for a rights-based approach to IG as part of such WSIS > principles taking from the relevant DoP text on rights. I have no problem with a rights-based approach and as I said both the procedural and substantive components could be approached from this angle. But the arguments as to what exactly that means have to be made persuasively rather than posited to be self-evident. I've not seen that done yet. Might be a good exercise for the R&P coalition...? > > Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy > here, and am spending time on this because I consider it an > important discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end > with text to the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just > not respectful. I suggested that if we disagree, let's agree to disagree. This widely used and understood phrase does not mean "do not reply" or have anything to do with respect or its absence. And in fact, we are actually agreeing, at least in part; stop the presses, no? :-) Bill PS: Just saw this... On Jul 13, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Bill, Parminder, everyone... > > I agree with Parminder--Bill, I do not think you should > underestimate the importance of the topics and the value of these > discussions for the rest of us, even if we do not intervene. If I didn't think the topic was important I wouldn't have written two long and turgid messages about it. I'm not underestimating it, but I am skeptical that we can quickly resolve it and get suitably broad- based agreement on a text. Cheers, Bill > > > > William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Parminder >> >> On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Parminder wrote: >> >>> William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ginger, >>>> >>>> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer >>>> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not >>>> the entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information >>>> societies generally. >>> Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked ' >>> WSIS principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further >>> clearer the current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS >>> principles include DoP (Geneva declaration of principles) >>> principles. To quote the paper >>> "This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the >>> Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the >>> Information Society" >> >> That the questionnaire links to the Geneva Declaration is not >> surprising since that's the first official document in which the >> principles are agreed (unless you want to count earlier version in >> the regional declarations etc). That doesn't mean that the WSIS >> principles on IG are now understood to mean the entire DOP >> (covering e.g. e-education, e-health, etc etc etc). Indeed, the >> second bit you quote, "as contained in the Geneva Declaration of >> Principles and the Tunis Agenda," demonstrates the point. The >> entire Geneva DOP is not contained in the TA. The WSIS principles >> on IG are, and they are enunciated in a limited number of paragraphs. >>> >>> >>> I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined >>> construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in >>> para 72 of TA to the four process issues - multilateral, >>> transparent, democratic and multistakeholder - that you mention. >> >> I don't know what self-determined means, it's been pretty clear for >> years what everyone's been talking about, as the transcripts of the >> consultations etc would demonstrate. But I would agree with you >> that people have often been selective in invoking the principles, >> depending on their objectives and the particular matters under >> discussion. As I've written elsewhere (piece in Wolfgang's power >> of ideas book), >> >> Paragraph 48 establishes guiding principles on the conduct of >> governance processes, namely that, they “should be multilateral, >> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >> organizations.” The latter point is amplified by Paragraph 49’s >> statement that Internet governance, “should involve all >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >> organizations.” Going further, Paragraph 50 holds that Internet >> governance issues “should be addressed in a coordinated manner.” >> While this point is raised as a preface to the call for the UN >> Secretary General to convene a Working Group on Internet Governance >> (WGIG) to study the issues, the need for coordination was invoked >> often enough in the course of the WSIS process to suggest that it >> stands as a generalizable principle as well. Taken together, these >> prescriptions constitute what could be called the procedural >> component of what came to be known as the “WSIS Principles on >> Internet governance.” In addition, Paragraphs 48-50 set out a >> substantive component, i.e. that Internet governance “should ensure >> an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all >> and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking >> into account multilingualism.” >> >> I think it's clear that the agreed principles on IG include both >> procedural and substantive components, and the latter pertain >> directly to the notion that IG should promote development. I'd >> guess you'd agree with that. But this is very different from >> saying that the rest of the DOP that is not on IG can be >> characterized as the WSIS principles on IG. >> >>> The present state of discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position >>> that WSIS principles basically means all of 'DoP plus' which >>> includes the four principles that you mention. >> >> The MAG doesn't have a mandate to redefine or reinterpret >> international agreements or rewrite the entire history of the WSIG/ >> IGF discussions. It has a mandate to program a conference, and in >> trying to figure out where to place discussions on programs in >> order to satisfy stakeholders has frequently taken some liberties >> with concepts etc. Moreover, the discourse you refer to is of >> course contested, with the Chinese saying one thing, others saying >> other things, etc. So if some parties are actually contending that >> the principles on IG include every DOP provision on every issue >> concerning the global information society, rather than just the >> ones on IG, then with all due respect this is pretty far from >> dispositive. Utterances made in program committee meetings for >> international conferences are not authoritative. >> >>> In fact the compromise on the rights debate in the MAG was that >>> rights will now get discussed under 'WSIS principles' section in >>> IGF - 4. I consider it as a major step forward from a narrow >>> 'process-oriented principles' approach that a a few in civil >>> society want to exclusively take to a broad ' substantive >>> principles' approach that was the real intent of TA and other WSIS >>> documents. >> >> Both the procedural and substantive components can be viewed from a >> rights perspective, although that would require a certain level of >> conceptual precision. The text I was responding to was different >> in scope. >> >> So...if you are suggesting that a caucus statement on the >> principles should go beyond the procedural component (which was the >> focus of the prior statement I referenced) and cover the >> substantive, we can readily agree. If you're saying that every >> last bit of the DOP is actually about IG and/or that this is true >> because some people said so in a MAG meeting, let's just agree to >> disagree rather than subjecting the list to one of our patented >> bilateral soliloquies :-) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 12:14:13 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:44:13 +0530 Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed In-Reply-To: <62BC648B0CA34D1E8478C54AAD4344DD@userPC> References: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <62BC648B0CA34D1E8478C54AAD4344DD@userPC> Message-ID: The moderator could perhaps add the paragraph in full or in parts. As for the text as already emerged, it may be a bit long, but the idea needs to be clearly conveyed, so it may please be retained without condensing it further. Shiva. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I don't think the following: > "The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments > and geographic regions." ... > > is an appropriate replacement for: > "we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with > disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of > the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting > peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad > based economic and social development." > > The latter is admittedly a mouthful but the problem is that these folks for > the most part weren't included in WSIS, the IGF to date and the first > statement presented isn't likely to provide much support for their specific > participation in any future activities of the IGF either. > > As for the rest I'm not sure that beyond stating the principle that we need > to go into so much detail on explanations, rationales and modalities... I > would have thought that a couple of sentences or one paragraph would > suffice. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:18 AM > To: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Ginger Paque' > Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed > paras > > > Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at compromise. > However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the > following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from > others as well: > > [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by Ginger] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the > quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other > governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are > represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not > represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to > be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various > categories of travel grants for participants may help improve > participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF > already has made some funds available for representation from Less > Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in > the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible > and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is > already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel > speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of > the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > participation could be improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the > IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from > business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants > to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and > partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special > attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented > geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to > those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to > the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is > especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the > positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant > from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the > positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund > large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and > diversity of participation. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, > > > > Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This > > mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience > > of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text > > as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) > > > > Thank you > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > > fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and > > significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with > > greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be > > considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants > > representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified > > individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that > > IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and > > include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment > > and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society > > causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social > > and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all > > governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for > > financial reasons, the present participants from Government are > > not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in > > parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly > > relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF > > do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. > > This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but > > availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different > > classes of participants may help improve participation by those > > not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some > > funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, > > but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible > > costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, > > organizations and individual participants) would be several times > > that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing > > the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist > > estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it > > would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a > > marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and > > participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true > > cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > > participation are compromised. > > > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends > > that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations > > supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well > > funded non-governmental and international organizations and the > > United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable > > travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel > > speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are > > required to be well-received for participation), full and partial > > fellowships to a large number of participants with special > > attention to participants from unrepresented categories > > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant > > segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if > > there is an individual need ). > > > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse > > opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to > > the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be > > built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to > > a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions > > about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply > > that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic > > conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the > > sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something > > larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF > > will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, > > International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no > > implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* > > and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. > > It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have > > significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of > > participation. > > > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > wrote: > > > > Hello Ginger > > > > Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the > > complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but > > don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a > > few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow > > as well, but not tonight. > > > > Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an > > independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but > > preferred not to. > > > > Shiva. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: > > > > Hi Shiva, > > > > I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, > > and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied > > with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to > > continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus > > on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the > > statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the > > thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete > > questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? > > > > Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > > > > Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. > > > > Best, > > Ginger > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > > Hello Ginger > > > > You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather > > than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it > > also apply to Q3? > > > > There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and > > the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really > > feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as > > comment from IGC? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy > > about this > > concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I > > wonder if we > > could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is > > submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the > > August > > deadline? > > > > In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, > > which would > > give you more freedom to make your point. Is that > > acceptable to you? > > > > Regards, > > Ginger > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > > Hello Michael Gurstein > > > > A quick reply and a little more later. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > > > > > > > > >>] > > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > > > >>; Michael Gurstein > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: > > Comments on Siva's > > proposed paras > > > > Hello Michael Gurstein, > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael > > Gurstein > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "The Internet Governance Caucus calls > > upon the IGF > > Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and > > participation > > substantially and significantly to > > further enhance the > > quality of programs with greater > > diversity of > > participation" sounds better? > > YES... > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > There are two aspects to be considered > > in this > > regard: a) > > The absence or > > non-participation of some of the world's > > most renowned > > Civil Society opinion > > leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders > > who are > > otherwise > > committed to > > social and other governance issues off > > IGF are not > > seen at > > the IGF; > > Governments are not represented on a > > level high enough > > > > HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY > > "RENOWNED CIVIL > > SOCIETY > > OPINION LEADERS" > > (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND > > PROBABLY MORE > > INTERNAL > > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT > > AND CERTAINLY > > NEITHER WE NOR THE > > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO > > IDENTIFY WHO THESE > > "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > > BE. > > > > AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL > > SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > > FOLKS FROM CIVIL > > SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP > > POSITIONS, OR > > ARE WE > > LOOKING FOR CIVIL > > SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG > > ISSUES, OR > > ARE WE > > LOOKING FOR LEADERS > > OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS > > ORGANIZATIONS WHO > > HAVE A > > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES > > (EACH OF THESE > > CATEGORIES IS > > PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED > > AMBIGUOUSLY > > UNDER > > YOUR STATEMENT. > > > > IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT > > IMPORTANCE > > THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF > > NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE > > SECRETARIAT CAN DO > > ABOUT > > THAT AND SIMILARLY > > WITH GOVERNMENTS. > > > > I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > > > > I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative > > interpretation of > > such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert > > that the > > present > > participants constitute a complete, > > representative, and > > ultimate group ? NO, BUT > > I'M HAVING > > TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA > > SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > > > I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi > > Klein; > > Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds > > familiar, but I > > wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point > > intended to > > bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. > > Looks like > > you are reading between the lines of what I write. > > > > HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET > > WOULD SEEM TO > > ME TO BE RATHER > > MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT > > LEAST COULD TALK > > WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG > > ISSUES IMPACT > > THEM AND > > THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON > > THE GROUND. > > > > Again an Indian reference - you have used the word > > "Sewa" in > > your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone > > pushing > > the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in > > India, a > > participant from India, I have faith in and respect > > for my > > country but I believe that in an International > > context I am at > > least a little wider than a national. I have been > > inspired by > > teachers who taught me in my school days that > > "patriotism is a > > prejudice" which is profound thinking which in > > depths implies > > that one must be beyond being patriotic and be > > rather global. > > > > (Will come back this point and write more in > > response to what > > you have written a little later) > > > > Thank you. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > > > MBG > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > M > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 12:27:12 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:57:12 -0430 Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed In-Reply-To: References: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <62BC648B0CA34D1E8478C54AAD4344DD@userPC> Message-ID: <4A5B6060.10107@gmail.com> Shiva and Michael, I would prefer that Michael re-phrase and propose the paragraph. Would you please do that, Michael? Thanks. gp Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > The moderator could perhaps add the paragraph in full or in parts. As > for the text as already emerged, it may be a bit long, but the idea > needs to be clearly conveyed, so it may please be retained without > condensing it further. > > Shiva. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Michael Gurstein > wrote: > > I don't think the following: > "The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant > segments > and geographic regions." ... > > is an appropriate replacement for: > "we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with > disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > poorest of > the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with > promoting > peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad > based economic and social development." > > The latter is admittedly a mouthful but the problem is that these > folks for > the most part weren't included in WSIS, the IGF to date and the first > statement presented isn't likely to provide much support for their > specific > participation in any future activities of the IGF either. > > As for the rest I'm not sure that beyond stating the principle > that we need > to go into so much detail on explanations, rationales and > modalities... I > would have thought that a couple of sentences or one paragraph would > suffice. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com ] > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:18 AM > To: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; > Michael Gurstein; 'Ginger Paque' > Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's > proposed > paras > > > Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at > compromise. > However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please > consider the > following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from > others as well: > > [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by > Ginger] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further > enhance the > quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other > governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are > represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not > represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This > needs to > be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of > various > categories of travel grants for participants may help improve > participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF > already has made some funds available for representation from Less > Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as > reflected in > the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible > and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is > already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to > panel > speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of > the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > participation could be improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends > that the > IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from > business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel > grants > to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), > full and > partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special > attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented > geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and > even to > those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual > need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to > the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is > especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the > positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant > from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the > positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund > large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing > quality and > diversity of participation. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, > > > > Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. > This > > mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience > > of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text > > as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) > > > > Thank you > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > > fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and > > significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with > > greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects > to be > > considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants > > representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified > > individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that > > IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and > > include more Civil Society participants known for their > commitment > > and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil > Society > > causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social > > and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all > > governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for > > financial reasons, the present participants from Government are > > not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in > > parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly > > relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of > the IGF > > do not represent all participant segments and geographic > regions. > > This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but > > availability of various categories of Travel Grants for > different > > classes of participants may help improve participation by those > > not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has > made some > > funds available for representation from Less Developed > Countries, > > but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible > > costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, > > organizations and individual participants) would be several > times > > that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in > organizing > > the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an > economist > > estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it > > would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a > > marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and > > participants, which would amount to a small proportion of > the true > > cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > > participation are compromised. > > > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends > > that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations > > supported by unconditional grants from business, > governments, well > > funded non-governmental and international organizations and the > > United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable > > travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel > > speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are > > required to be well-received for participation), full and > partial > > fellowships to a large number of participants with special > > attention to participants from unrepresented categories > > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented > participant > > segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if > > there is an individual need ). > > > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse > > opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to > > the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be > > built up from contributions that are unconditional (as > opposed to > > a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions > > about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply > > that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic > > conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and > attend the > > sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something > > larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF > > will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, > > International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no > > implied conditions on the positions to be taken by > participants*)* > > and may be awarded to panelists and participants > unconditionally. > > It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to > have > > significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of > > participation. > > > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > >> wrote: > > > > Hello Ginger > > > > Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the > > complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but > > don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a > > few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow > > as well, but not tonight. > > > > Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an > > independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but > > preferred not to. > > > > Shiva. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque > > > >> wrote: > > > > Hi Shiva, > > > > I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, > > and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet > satisfied > > with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to > > continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus > > on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the > > statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the > > thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete > > questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? > > > > Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > > > > Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. > > > > Best, > > Ginger > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > > Hello Ginger > > > > You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather > > than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it > > also apply to Q3? > > > > There were further exchanges between Gurstein and > me, and > > the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you > really > > feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as > > comment from IGC? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque > > > > > > > >>> > > wrote: > > > > Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of > controversy > > about this > > concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I > > wonder if we > > could continue this discussion after the > questionnaire is > > submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted > by the > > August > > deadline? > > > > In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, > > which would > > give you more freedom to make your point. Is that > > acceptable to you? > > > > Regards, > > Ginger > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > > Hello Michael Gurstein > > > > A quick reply and a little more later. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>>] > > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>>; Michael Gurstein > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: > > Comments on Siva's > > proposed paras > > > > Hello Michael Gurstein, > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael > > Gurstein > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "The Internet Governance Caucus calls > > upon the IGF > > Secretariat to fund the IGF > programs and > > participation > > substantially and significantly to > > further enhance the > > quality of programs with greater > > diversity of > > participation" sounds better? > > YES... > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > There are two aspects to be considered > > in this > > regard: a) > > The absence or > > non-participation of some of the > world's > > most renowned > > Civil Society opinion > > leaders is noticeable; Business > Leaders > > who are > > otherwise > > committed to > > social and other governance issues off > > IGF are not > > seen at > > the IGF; > > Governments are not represented on a > > level high enough > > > > HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY > > "RENOWNED CIVIL > > SOCIETY > > OPINION LEADERS" > > (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT > LEAST TWO AND > > PROBABLY MORE > > INTERNAL > > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT > > AND CERTAINLY > > NEITHER WE NOR THE > > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO > > IDENTIFY WHO THESE > > "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > > BE. > > > > AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL > > SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > > FOLKS FROM CIVIL > > SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP > > POSITIONS, OR > > ARE WE > > LOOKING FOR CIVIL > > SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG > > ISSUES, OR > > ARE WE > > LOOKING FOR LEADERS > > OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS > > ORGANIZATIONS WHO > > HAVE A > > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG > ISSUES > > (EACH OF THESE > > CATEGORIES IS > > PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE > INCLUDED > > AMBIGUOUSLY > > UNDER > > YOUR STATEMENT. > > > > IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF > SUFFICIENT > > IMPORTANCE > > THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF > > NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE > > SECRETARIAT CAN DO > > ABOUT > > THAT AND SIMILARLY > > WITH GOVERNMENTS. > > > > I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > > > > I am sorry, I don't agree with your > negative > > interpretation of > > such a positive suggestion. Are we to > assert > > that the > > present > > participants constitute a complete, > > representative, and > > ultimate group ? NO, BUT > > I'M HAVING > > TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA > > SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > > > I will have to browse a little to learn about > Naomi > > Klein; > > Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds > > familiar, but I > > wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point > > intended to > > bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. > > Looks like > > you are reading between the lines of what I > write. > > > > HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET > > WOULD SEEM TO > > ME TO BE RATHER > > MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT > > LEAST COULD TALK > > WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG > > ISSUES IMPACT > > THEM AND > > THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO > DO ON > > THE GROUND. > > > > Again an Indian reference - you have used the > word > > "Sewa" in > > your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as > someone > > pushing > > the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in > > India, a > > participant from India, I have faith in and > respect > > for my > > country but I believe that in an International > > context I am at > > least a little wider than a national. I have > been > > inspired by > > teachers who taught me in my school days that > > "patriotism is a > > prejudice" which is profound thinking which in > > depths implies > > that one must be beyond being patriotic and be > > rather global. > > > > (Will come back this point and write more in > > response to what > > you have written a little later) > > > > Thank you. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > > > MBG > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > M > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 12:28:18 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:58:18 -0430 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only Jeanette who holds this view. Thanks, gp Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at >> compromise. However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. >> Please consider the following counter-proposal, and of course, we >> hope for comments from others as well: >> >> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by >> Ginger] >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >> substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance >> the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. > > The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. I > don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF Secretariat to > > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the > lack of such funds. > > jeanette >> >> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF >> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly >> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also >> true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include >> more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and >> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >> causes. Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and >> other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >> governments are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees >> of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic >> regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, >> but availability of various categories of travel grants for >> participants may help improve participation by those not attending >> the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available >> for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding >> achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs >> to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and >> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual >> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total >> visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, >> which is already spent. With an increment in funding for travel >> support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a >> small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels >> and the diversity of participation could be improved. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that >> the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants >> from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and >> international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may >> extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, >> program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number >> of participants with special attention to participants from >> unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >> unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, >> represented regions if there is an individual need ). >> >> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to >> the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is >> especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the >> positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant >> from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the >> positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >> large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality >> and diversity of participation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>> >>> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. >>> This mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the >>> convenience of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am >>> attaching the text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted >>> changes ) >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and >>> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with >>> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be >>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants >>> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that >>> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and >>> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment >>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social >>> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for >>> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are >>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in >>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly >>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF >>> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. >>> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but >>> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different >>> classes of participants may help improve participation by those >>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some >>> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>> >>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >>> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a >>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and >>> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true >>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >>> participation are compromised. >>> >>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations >>> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well >>> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the >>> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable >>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel >>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are >>> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial >>> fellowships to a large number of participants with special >>> attention to participants from unrepresented categories >>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >>> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >>> there is an individual need ). >>> >>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse >>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to >>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be >>> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to >>> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >>> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply >>> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic >>> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the >>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something >>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF >>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, >>> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no >>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* >>> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. >>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have >>> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>> participation. >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>> >>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger >>> >>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the >>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but >>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a >>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow >>> as well, but not tonight. >>> >>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an >>> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but >>> preferred not to. >>> >>> Shiva. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Shiva, >>> >>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, >>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied >>> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to >>> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus >>> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the >>> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the >>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete >>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? >>> >>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>> >>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >>> >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger >>> >>> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather >>> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it >>> also apply to Q3? >>> >>> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and >>> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really >>> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as >>> comment from IGC? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >>> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy >>> about this >>> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I >>> wonder if we >>> could continue this discussion after the >>> questionnaire is >>> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the >>> August >>> deadline? >>> >>> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, >>> which would >>> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that >>> acceptable to you? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>> >>> A quick reply and a little more later. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>; Michael Gurstein >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: >>> Comments on Siva's >>> proposed paras >>> >>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael >>> Gurstein >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls >>> upon the IGF >>> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and >>> participation >>> substantially and significantly to >>> further enhance the >>> quality of programs with greater >>> diversity of >>> participation" sounds better? >>> YES... >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are two aspects to be considered >>> in this >>> regard: a) >>> The absence or >>> non-participation of some of the world's >>> most renowned >>> Civil Society opinion >>> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders >>> who are >>> otherwise >>> committed to >>> social and other governance issues off >>> IGF are not >>> seen at >>> the IGF; >>> Governments are not represented on a >>> level high enough >>> >>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY >>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>> SOCIETY >>> OPINION LEADERS" >>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST >>> TWO AND >>> PROBABLY MORE >>> INTERNAL >>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT >>> AND CERTAINLY >>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO >>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >>> BE. >>> >>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP >>> POSITIONS, OR >>> ARE WE >>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>> ISSUES, OR >>> ARE WE >>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS >>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>> HAVE A >>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>> (EACH OF THESE >>> CATEGORIES IS >>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED >>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>> UNDER >>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>> >>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT >>> IMPORTANCE >>> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE >>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>> ABOUT >>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>> >>> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>> >>> >>> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >>> interpretation of >>> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert >>> that the >>> present >>> participants constitute a complete, >>> representative, and >>> ultimate group ? NO, BUT >>> I'M HAVING >>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>> >>> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi >>> Klein; >>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds >>> familiar, but I >>> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point >>> intended to >>> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. >>> Looks like >>> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >>> >>> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET >>> WOULD SEEM TO >>> ME TO BE RATHER >>> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT >>> LEAST COULD TALK >>> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG >>> ISSUES IMPACT >>> THEM AND >>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>> THE GROUND. >>> >>> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word >>> "Sewa" in >>> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone >>> pushing >>> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in >>> India, a >>> participant from India, I have faith in and respect >>> for my >>> country but I believe that in an International >>> context I am at >>> least a little wider than a national. I have been >>> inspired by >>> teachers who taught me in my school days that >>> "patriotism is a >>> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in >>> depths implies >>> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be >>> rather global. >>> >>> (Will come back this point and write more in >>> response to what >>> you have written a little later) >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>> >>> MBG >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> M >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jul 13 12:38:56 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:38:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another California as Michael G. suggests. Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to call upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own functioning. If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should come from or how it could be generated. jeanette Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only Jeanette who > holds this view. > > Thanks, gp > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at >>> compromise. However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. >>> Please consider the following counter-proposal, and of course, we >>> hope for comments from others as well: >>> >>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by >>> Ginger] >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>> substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance >>> the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. >> >> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. I >> don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF Secretariat to >> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the >> lack of such funds. >> >> jeanette >>> >>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF >>> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly >>> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also >>> true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include >>> more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and >>> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >>> causes. Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and >>> other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>> governments are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees >>> of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic >>> regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, >>> but availability of various categories of travel grants for >>> participants may help improve participation by those not attending >>> the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available >>> for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding >>> achieves a limited objective. >>> >>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs >>> to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and >>> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual >>> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total >>> visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, >>> which is already spent. With an increment in funding for travel >>> support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a >>> small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels >>> and the diversity of participation could be improved. >>> >>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that >>> the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants >>> from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and >>> international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may >>> extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, >>> program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number >>> of participants with special attention to participants from >>> unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, >>> represented regions if there is an individual need ). >>> >>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to >>> the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is >>> especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the >>> positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant >>> from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the >>> positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >>> large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality >>> and diversity of participation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>> >>>> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. >>>> This mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the >>>> convenience of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am >>>> attaching the text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted >>>> changes ) >>>> >>>> Thank you >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and >>>> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with >>>> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be >>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants >>>> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that >>>> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and >>>> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment >>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social >>>> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for >>>> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are >>>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in >>>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly >>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF >>>> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. >>>> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but >>>> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different >>>> classes of participants may help improve participation by those >>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some >>>> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >>>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>> >>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >>>> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a >>>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and >>>> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true >>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >>>> participation are compromised. >>>> >>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >>>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations >>>> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well >>>> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the >>>> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable >>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel >>>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are >>>> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial >>>> fellowships to a large number of participants with special >>>> attention to participants from unrepresented categories >>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >>>> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >>>> there is an individual need ). >>>> >>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse >>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to >>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be >>>> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to >>>> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >>>> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply >>>> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic >>>> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the >>>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something >>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF >>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, >>>> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no >>>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* >>>> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. >>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have >>>> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>>> participation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Ginger >>>> >>>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the >>>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but >>>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a >>>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow >>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>> >>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an >>>> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but >>>> preferred not to. >>>> >>>> Shiva. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Shiva, >>>> >>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, >>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied >>>> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to >>>> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus >>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the >>>> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the >>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete >>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? >>>> >>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>> >>>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Ginger >>>> >>>> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather >>>> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it >>>> also apply to Q3? >>>> >>>> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and >>>> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really >>>> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as >>>> comment from IGC? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >>>> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy >>>> about this >>>> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I >>>> wonder if we >>>> could continue this discussion after the >>>> questionnaire is >>>> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the >>>> August >>>> deadline? >>>> >>>> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, >>>> which would >>>> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that >>>> acceptable to you? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>> >>>> A quick reply and a little more later. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>] >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >>>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>; Michael Gurstein >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: >>>> Comments on Siva's >>>> proposed paras >>>> >>>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael >>>> Gurstein >>>> >>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls >>>> upon the IGF >>>> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and >>>> participation >>>> substantially and significantly to >>>> further enhance the >>>> quality of programs with greater >>>> diversity of >>>> participation" sounds better? >>>> YES... >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are two aspects to be considered >>>> in this >>>> regard: a) >>>> The absence or >>>> non-participation of some of the world's >>>> most renowned >>>> Civil Society opinion >>>> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders >>>> who are >>>> otherwise >>>> committed to >>>> social and other governance issues off >>>> IGF are not >>>> seen at >>>> the IGF; >>>> Governments are not represented on a >>>> level high enough >>>> >>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY >>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY >>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST >>>> TWO AND >>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>> INTERNAL >>>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO >>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >>>> BE. >>>> >>>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP >>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>> ARE WE >>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>> ISSUES, OR >>>> ARE WE >>>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>>> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>> HAVE A >>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED >>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>> UNDER >>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>> >>>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>> IMPORTANCE >>>> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >>>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE >>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>> ABOUT >>>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>> >>>> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>> >>>> >>>> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >>>> interpretation of >>>> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert >>>> that the >>>> present >>>> participants constitute a complete, >>>> representative, and >>>> ultimate group ? NO, BUT >>>> I'M HAVING >>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>> >>>> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi >>>> Klein; >>>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds >>>> familiar, but I >>>> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point >>>> intended to >>>> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. >>>> Looks like >>>> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >>>> >>>> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET >>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT >>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG >>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>> THEM AND >>>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>> THE GROUND. >>>> >>>> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word >>>> "Sewa" in >>>> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone >>>> pushing >>>> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in >>>> India, a >>>> participant from India, I have faith in and respect >>>> for my >>>> country but I believe that in an International >>>> context I am at >>>> least a little wider than a national. I have been >>>> inspired by >>>> teachers who taught me in my school days that >>>> "patriotism is a >>>> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in >>>> depths implies >>>> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be >>>> rather global. >>>> >>>> (Will come back this point and write more in >>>> response to what >>>> you have written a little later) >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>> >>>> MBG >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 13 13:01:32 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:31:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review In-Reply-To: References: <4A59D9FD.2000307@gmail.com> <4A59DFCD.8030102@gmail.com> <4A59E1F2.4050801@gmail.com> <4A5AFE32.4070404@itforchange.net> <4A5B32A8.9040406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5B686C.2040209@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Jul 13, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> Bill >> >> Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles have considerably >> changed subsequent to my email > > Yes, I wrote a paper two years ago because of an email you wrote two > hours ago. Rather prescient, no? ;-) I havent read your paper but know that you have consistently spoken of and advocated on this list and outside WSIS principles as only 'multilateral, transparent, democratic and multistakeholder' and nothing else ever. This is matter of record in IGC archives and the same is true of the (IGC statement) text you proposed to Ginger in reply to question 3 on WSIS principles objecting to the present draft highlighting the rights issues in response to this question as grossly mis-informed. > It is? I thought self-selection means one selects oneself to something. That was wrong English on my part. i mean selectivity or selective interpretation. thanks for correcting. > > On the substantive/development side, the principles are arguably less > systematic and coherent, an artifact of the negotiation process and > phrases particular governments wanted in. I cannot at all see how any of the following four principles ""should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism" are less systematic and coherent than "'multilateral, transparent, democratic and multistakeholder". I find them perfectly clear and coherent. In fact we have earlier agreed that democratic (in international sense) and multistakeholder are very unclear terms. So the choice of one set of principles in ones advocacy over other is basically political, isnt it. > But one can argue that taken together they reflect a normative stance > that IG should promote development, even if there's no agreement on > exactly what that means or how it could be achieved. Thats a bit dismissive. Isnt everything here a normative stance. Is it any more clear how multilateral, democratic, transparent and multistakeholder principles can be achieved. >> >> Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy >> here, and am spending time on this because I consider it an important >> discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end with text >> to the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just not respectful. > > I suggested that if we disagree, let's agree to disagree. This > widely used and understood phrase does not mean "do not reply" or have > anything to do with respect or its absence. And in fact, we are > actually agreeing, at least in part; stop the presses, no? :-) You know that is not the part I replied to. i replied to the part on your advise for us not to subject the list any further to bilateral soliloquies. Making an argument and at its end to say 'lets now stop it' is what is not done, and is disrespectful. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 13 13:04:55 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:34:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B6937.7010802@itforchange.net> I think the call for stable and substantial funding is not made to the IGF as it exists but its parent system - the UN. The review is also being done by the UN system and not by the IGF. While we are it, we should insist that there is stable and substantial public funding for the IGF... I remember that IGC has called for it in an earleri statement. Public funding is important for unbiased working of the IGF. parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only Jeanette who > holds this view. > > Thanks, gp > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at >>> compromise. However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. >>> Please consider the following counter-proposal, and of course, we >>> hope for comments from others as well: >>> >>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by >>> Ginger] >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>> substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance >>> the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. >> >> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. >> I don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF >> Secretariat to >> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the >> lack of such funds. >> >> jeanette >>> >>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present >>> IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly >>> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also >>> true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include >>> more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and >>> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >>> causes. Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and >>> other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>> governments are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees >>> of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic >>> regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, >>> but availability of various categories of travel grants for >>> participants may help improve participation by those not attending >>> the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available >>> for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding >>> achieves a limited objective. >>> >>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs >>> to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and >>> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual >>> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total >>> visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, >>> which is already spent. With an increment in funding for travel >>> support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a >>> small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels >>> and the diversity of participation could be improved. >>> >>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that >>> the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants >>> from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and >>> international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may >>> extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, >>> program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater >>> number of participants with special attention to participants from >>> unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, >>> represented regions if there is an individual need ). >>> >>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions >>> to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It >>> is especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the >>> positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a >>> grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about >>> the positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a >>> fund large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing >>> quality and diversity of participation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>> >>>> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. >>>> This mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the >>>> convenience of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am >>>> attaching the text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted >>>> changes ) >>>> >>>> Thank you >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and >>>> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with >>>> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be >>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants >>>> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that >>>> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and >>>> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment >>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social >>>> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for >>>> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are >>>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in >>>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly >>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF >>>> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. >>>> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but >>>> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different >>>> classes of participants may help improve participation by those >>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some >>>> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >>>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>> >>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >>>> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a >>>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and >>>> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true >>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >>>> participation are compromised. >>>> >>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >>>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations >>>> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well >>>> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the >>>> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable >>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel >>>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are >>>> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial >>>> fellowships to a large number of participants with special >>>> attention to participants from unrepresented categories >>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >>>> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >>>> there is an individual need ). >>>> >>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse >>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to >>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be >>>> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to >>>> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >>>> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply >>>> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic >>>> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the >>>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something >>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF >>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, >>>> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no >>>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* >>>> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. >>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have >>>> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>>> participation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Ginger >>>> >>>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the >>>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but >>>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a >>>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow >>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>> >>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an >>>> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but >>>> preferred not to. >>>> >>>> Shiva. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Shiva, >>>> >>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, >>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied >>>> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to >>>> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus >>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the >>>> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the >>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete >>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? >>>> >>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>> >>>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Ginger >>>> >>>> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather >>>> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it >>>> also apply to Q3? >>>> >>>> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and >>>> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really >>>> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as >>>> comment from IGC? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >>>> >>>> >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy >>>> about this >>>> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I >>>> wonder if we >>>> could continue this discussion after the >>>> questionnaire is >>>> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the >>>> August >>>> deadline? >>>> >>>> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, >>>> which would >>>> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that >>>> acceptable to you? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>> >>>> A quick reply and a little more later. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>] >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >>>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>; Michael Gurstein >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: >>>> Comments on Siva's >>>> proposed paras >>>> >>>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael >>>> Gurstein >>>> >>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls >>>> upon the IGF >>>> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and >>>> participation >>>> substantially and significantly to >>>> further enhance the >>>> quality of programs with greater >>>> diversity of >>>> participation" sounds >>>> better? YES... >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are two aspects to be considered >>>> in this >>>> regard: a) >>>> The absence or >>>> non-participation of some of the world's >>>> most renowned >>>> Civil Society opinion >>>> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders >>>> who are >>>> otherwise >>>> committed to >>>> social and other governance issues off >>>> IGF are not >>>> seen at >>>> the IGF; >>>> Governments are not represented on a >>>> level high enough >>>> >>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY >>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY >>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST >>>> TWO AND >>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>> INTERNAL >>>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO >>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >>>> BE. >>>> >>>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP >>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>> ARE WE >>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>> ISSUES, OR >>>> ARE WE >>>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>>> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>> HAVE A >>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED >>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>> UNDER >>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>> >>>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>> IMPORTANCE >>>> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >>>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE >>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>> ABOUT >>>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>> >>>> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>> >>>> >>>> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >>>> interpretation of >>>> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert >>>> that the >>>> present >>>> participants constitute a complete, >>>> representative, and >>>> ultimate group ? NO, BUT >>>> I'M HAVING >>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>> >>>> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi >>>> Klein; >>>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds >>>> familiar, but I >>>> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point >>>> intended to >>>> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. >>>> Looks like >>>> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >>>> >>>> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET >>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT >>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG >>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>> THEM AND >>>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>> THE GROUND. >>>> >>>> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word >>>> "Sewa" in >>>> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone >>>> pushing >>>> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in >>>> India, a >>>> participant from India, I have faith in and respect >>>> for my >>>> country but I believe that in an International >>>> context I am at >>>> least a little wider than a national. I have been >>>> inspired by >>>> teachers who taught me in my school days that >>>> "patriotism is a >>>> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in >>>> depths implies >>>> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be >>>> rather global. >>>> >>>> (Will come back this point and write more in >>>> response to what >>>> you have written a little later) >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>> >>>> MBG >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jul 13 13:14:32 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:14:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B6937.7010802@itforchange.net> References: <925076522AE7431C9CB431784E9C979A@userPC> <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6937.7010802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5B6B78.1010005@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > I think the call for stable and substantial funding is not made to the > IGF as it exists but its parent system - the UN. The review is also > being done by the UN system and not by the IGF. > > While we are it, we should insist that there is stable and substantial > public funding for the IGF... I remember that IGC has called for it in > an earleri statement. Public funding is important for unbiased working > of the IGF. I support that. The suggested language says something else: "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation." Perhaps it would be easier to agree on the text if we didn't go into details as to what we would like to see funded? jeanette > > parminder > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only Jeanette who >> holds this view. >> >> Thanks, gp >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at >>>> compromise. However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. >>>> Please consider the following counter-proposal, and of course, we >>>> hope for comments from others as well: >>>> >>>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by >>>> Ginger] >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>> substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance >>>> the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. >>> >>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. >>> I don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF >>> Secretariat to >>> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the >>> lack of such funds. >>> >>> jeanette >>>> >>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present >>>> IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly >>>> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also >>>> true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include >>>> more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and >>>> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >>>> causes. Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and >>>> other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>> governments are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees >>>> of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic >>>> regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, >>>> but availability of various categories of travel grants for >>>> participants may help improve participation by those not attending >>>> the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available >>>> for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding >>>> achieves a limited objective. >>>> >>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs >>>> to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and >>>> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual >>>> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >>>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total >>>> visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, >>>> which is already spent. With an increment in funding for travel >>>> support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a >>>> small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels >>>> and the diversity of participation could be improved. >>>> >>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that >>>> the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants >>>> from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and >>>> international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may >>>> extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, >>>> program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater >>>> number of participants with special attention to participants from >>>> unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, >>>> represented regions if there is an individual need ). >>>> >>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions >>>> to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It >>>> is especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the >>>> positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a >>>> grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about >>>> the positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a >>>> fund large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing >>>> quality and diversity of participation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>>> >>>>> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. >>>>> This mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the >>>>> convenience of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am >>>>> attaching the text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted >>>>> changes ) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and >>>>> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with >>>>> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be >>>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants >>>>> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that >>>>> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and >>>>> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment >>>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >>>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social >>>>> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for >>>>> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are >>>>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in >>>>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly >>>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF >>>>> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. >>>>> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but >>>>> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different >>>>> classes of participants may help improve participation by those >>>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some >>>>> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >>>>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>> >>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >>>>> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a >>>>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and >>>>> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true >>>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >>>>> participation are compromised. >>>>> >>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >>>>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations >>>>> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well >>>>> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the >>>>> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable >>>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel >>>>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are >>>>> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial >>>>> fellowships to a large number of participants with special >>>>> attention to participants from unrepresented categories >>>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >>>>> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >>>>> there is an individual need ). >>>>> >>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse >>>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to >>>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be >>>>> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to >>>>> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >>>>> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply >>>>> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic >>>>> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the >>>>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something >>>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF >>>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, >>>>> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no >>>>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* >>>>> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. >>>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have >>>>> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>>>> participation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>> >>>>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the >>>>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but >>>>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a >>>>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow >>>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>>> >>>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an >>>>> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but >>>>> preferred not to. >>>>> >>>>> Shiva. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Shiva, >>>>> >>>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, >>>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied >>>>> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to >>>>> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus >>>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the >>>>> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the >>>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete >>>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? >>>>> >>>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>> >>>>> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather >>>>> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it >>>>> also apply to Q3? >>>>> >>>>> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and >>>>> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really >>>>> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as >>>>> comment from IGC? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy >>>>> about this >>>>> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I >>>>> wonder if we >>>>> could continue this discussion after the >>>>> questionnaire is >>>>> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the >>>>> August >>>>> deadline? >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, >>>>> which would >>>>> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that >>>>> acceptable to you? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>>> >>>>> A quick reply and a little more later. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>] >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >>>>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>; Michael Gurstein >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: >>>>> Comments on Siva's >>>>> proposed paras >>>>> >>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael >>>>> Gurstein >>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls >>>>> upon the IGF >>>>> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and >>>>> participation >>>>> substantially and significantly to >>>>> further enhance the >>>>> quality of programs with greater >>>>> diversity of >>>>> participation" sounds >>>>> better? YES... >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are two aspects to be considered >>>>> in this >>>>> regard: a) >>>>> The absence or >>>>> non-participation of some of the world's >>>>> most renowned >>>>> Civil Society opinion >>>>> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders >>>>> who are >>>>> otherwise >>>>> committed to >>>>> social and other governance issues off >>>>> IGF are not >>>>> seen at >>>>> the IGF; >>>>> Governments are not represented on a >>>>> level high enough >>>>> >>>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY >>>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY >>>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST >>>>> TWO AND >>>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>>> INTERNAL >>>>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>>>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO >>>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >>>>> BE. >>>>> >>>>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP >>>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>>> ARE WE >>>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>>> ISSUES, OR >>>>> ARE WE >>>>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>>>> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>>> HAVE A >>>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED >>>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>>> UNDER >>>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>>> >>>>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>>> IMPORTANCE >>>>> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >>>>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE >>>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>>> ABOUT >>>>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>>> >>>>> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >>>>> interpretation of >>>>> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert >>>>> that the >>>>> present >>>>> participants constitute a complete, >>>>> representative, and >>>>> ultimate group ? NO, BUT >>>>> I'M HAVING >>>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >>>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>>> >>>>> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi >>>>> Klein; >>>>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds >>>>> familiar, but I >>>>> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point >>>>> intended to >>>>> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. >>>>> Looks like >>>>> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >>>>> >>>>> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET >>>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>>> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT >>>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>>> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG >>>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>>> THEM AND >>>>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>>> THE GROUND. >>>>> >>>>> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word >>>>> "Sewa" in >>>>> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone >>>>> pushing >>>>> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in >>>>> India, a >>>>> participant from India, I have faith in and respect >>>>> for my >>>>> country but I believe that in an International >>>>> context I am at >>>>> least a little wider than a national. I have been >>>>> inspired by >>>>> teachers who taught me in my school days that >>>>> "patriotism is a >>>>> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in >>>>> depths implies >>>>> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be >>>>> rather global. >>>>> >>>>> (Will come back this point and write more in >>>>> response to what >>>>> you have written a little later) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>>> >>>>> MBG >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 13:17:58 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:47:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hello Jeanette Hoffmann The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook unconstrained by the present situation. Another million or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the IGF body. 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a way to find funds to answer thiso call. 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF in eternal poverty, I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it not mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with such a suggestion and in its present form, is there anything seriously objectionable with what it says about enhancing the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation? Thank you. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another California as > Michael G. suggests. > Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support people's > participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to call upon somebody for > funding who has no funding and spends a significant amount of time on > soliciting donations for its own functioning. > If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should come from > or how it could be generated. > jeanette > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only Jeanette who >> holds this view. >> >> Thanks, gp >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at compromise. >>>> However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the >>>> following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from others >>>> as well: >>>> >>>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by >>>> Ginger] >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>> substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the >>>> quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. >>>> >>> >>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. I >>> don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF Secretariat to >>> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the lack >>> of such funds. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>>> >>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF >>>> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF >>>> participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society >>>> participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF >>>> arena on various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who are otherwise >>>> committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and >>>> not all governments are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees >>>> of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. >>>> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability >>>> of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve >>>> participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already >>>> has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed >>>> Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>> >>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to >>>> the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual >>>> participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF >>>> Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. >>>> If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, >>>> it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With an increment in >>>> funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would >>>> amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of >>>> panels and the diversity of participation could be improved. >>>> >>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the >>>> IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, >>>> governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations >>>> and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead >>>> participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial >>>> fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to >>>> participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions >>>> and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, >>>> represented regions if there is an individual need ). >>>> >>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to >>>> the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is >>>> especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or >>>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant from a business >>>> trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken). It >>>> is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant >>>> impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of participation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>>> >>>>> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This >>>>> mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience of >>>>> those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text as a PDF >>>>> file which would show the highlighted changes ) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and >>>>> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with >>>>> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be >>>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants >>>>> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that >>>>> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and >>>>> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment >>>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >>>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social >>>>> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for >>>>> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are >>>>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in >>>>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly >>>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF >>>>> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. >>>>> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but >>>>> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different >>>>> classes of participants may help improve participation by those >>>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some >>>>> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >>>>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>> >>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >>>>> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a >>>>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and >>>>> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true >>>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >>>>> participation are compromised. >>>>> >>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >>>>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations >>>>> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well >>>>> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the >>>>> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable >>>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel >>>>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are >>>>> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial >>>>> fellowships to a large number of participants with special >>>>> attention to participants from unrepresented categories >>>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >>>>> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >>>>> there is an individual need ). >>>>> >>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse >>>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to >>>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be >>>>> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to >>>>> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >>>>> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply >>>>> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic >>>>> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the >>>>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something >>>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF >>>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, >>>>> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no >>>>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* >>>>> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. >>>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have >>>>> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>>>> participation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>>>> isolatedn at gmail.com > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>> >>>>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the >>>>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but >>>>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a >>>>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow >>>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>>> >>>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an >>>>> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but >>>>> preferred not to. >>>>> >>>>> Shiva. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Shiva, >>>>> >>>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, >>>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied >>>>> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to >>>>> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus >>>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the >>>>> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the >>>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete >>>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? >>>>> >>>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>> >>>>> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather >>>>> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it >>>>> also apply to Q3? >>>>> >>>>> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and >>>>> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really >>>>> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as >>>>> comment from IGC? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >>>>> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy >>>>> about this >>>>> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I >>>>> wonder if we >>>>> could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is >>>>> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the >>>>> August >>>>> deadline? >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, >>>>> which would >>>>> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that >>>>> acceptable to you? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>>> >>>>> A quick reply and a little more later. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>] >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >>>>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>; Michael Gurstein >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: >>>>> Comments on Siva's >>>>> proposed paras >>>>> >>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael >>>>> Gurstein >>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls >>>>> upon the IGF >>>>> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and >>>>> participation >>>>> substantially and significantly to >>>>> further enhance the >>>>> quality of programs with greater >>>>> diversity of >>>>> participation" sounds better? >>>>> YES... >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are two aspects to be considered >>>>> in this >>>>> regard: a) >>>>> The absence or >>>>> non-participation of some of the world's >>>>> most renowned >>>>> Civil Society opinion >>>>> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders >>>>> who are >>>>> otherwise >>>>> committed to >>>>> social and other governance issues off >>>>> IGF are not >>>>> seen at >>>>> the IGF; >>>>> Governments are not represented on a >>>>> level high enough >>>>> >>>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY >>>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY >>>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO >>>>> AND >>>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>>> INTERNAL >>>>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>>>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO >>>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >>>>> BE. >>>>> >>>>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP >>>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>>> ARE WE >>>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>>> ISSUES, OR >>>>> ARE WE >>>>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>>>> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>>> HAVE A >>>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED >>>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>>> UNDER >>>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>>> >>>>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>>> IMPORTANCE >>>>> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >>>>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE >>>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>>> ABOUT >>>>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>>> >>>>> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative >>>>> interpretation of >>>>> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert >>>>> that the >>>>> present >>>>> participants constitute a complete, >>>>> representative, and >>>>> ultimate group ? NO, BUT >>>>> I'M HAVING >>>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >>>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>>> >>>>> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi >>>>> Klein; >>>>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds >>>>> familiar, but I >>>>> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point >>>>> intended to >>>>> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. >>>>> Looks like >>>>> you are reading between the lines of what I write. >>>>> >>>>> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET >>>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>>> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT >>>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>>> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG >>>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>>> THEM AND >>>>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>>> THE GROUND. >>>>> >>>>> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word >>>>> "Sewa" in >>>>> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone >>>>> pushing >>>>> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in >>>>> India, a >>>>> participant from India, I have faith in and respect >>>>> for my >>>>> country but I believe that in an International >>>>> context I am at >>>>> least a little wider than a national. I have been >>>>> inspired by >>>>> teachers who taught me in my school days that >>>>> "patriotism is a >>>>> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in >>>>> depths implies >>>>> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be >>>>> rather global. >>>>> >>>>> (Will come back this point and write more in >>>>> response to what >>>>> you have written a little later) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>>> >>>>> MBG >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 13:20:57 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:50:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed In-Reply-To: <4A5B6060.10107@gmail.com> References: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <62BC648B0CA34D1E8478C54AAD4344DD@userPC> <4A5B6060.10107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Came to me marked Re: [SPAM] on the subject line. Michael might have missed this. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva and Michael, > I would prefer that Michael re-phrase and propose the paragraph. Would you > please do that, Michael? Thanks. gp > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> The moderator could perhaps add the paragraph in full or in parts. As for >> the text as already emerged, it may be a bit long, but the idea needs to be >> clearly conveyed, so it may please be retained without condensing it >> further. >> >> Shiva. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Michael Gurstein > gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I don't think the following: >> "The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant >> segments >> and geographic regions." ... >> >> is an appropriate replacement for: >> "we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with >> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the >> poorest of >> the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with >> promoting >> peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an >> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet >> governance as ways of responding to specific localized >> opportunities and >> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in >> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad >> based economic and social development." >> >> The latter is admittedly a mouthful but the problem is that these >> folks for >> the most part weren't included in WSIS, the IGF to date and the first >> statement presented isn't likely to provide much support for their >> specific >> participation in any future activities of the IGF either. >> >> As for the rest I'm not sure that beyond stating the principle >> that we need >> to go into so much detail on explanations, rationales and >> modalities... I >> would have thought that a couple of sentences or one paragraph would >> suffice. >> >> MBG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com ] >> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:18 AM >> To: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; >> Michael Gurstein; 'Ginger Paque' >> Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's >> proposed >> paras >> >> >> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at >> compromise. >> However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please >> consider the >> following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from >> others as well: >> >> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by >> Ginger] >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >> substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further >> enhance the >> quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. >> >> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF >> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly >> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true >> that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more >> Civil Society participants known for their commitment and >> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. >> Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other >> governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are >> represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not >> represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This >> needs to >> be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of >> various >> categories of travel grants for participants may help improve >> participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF >> already has made some funds available for representation from Less >> Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to >> the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and >> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual >> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as >> reflected in >> the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible >> and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is >> already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to >> panel >> speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of >> the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >> participation could be improved. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >> that the >> IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from >> business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international >> organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel >> grants >> to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), >> full and >> partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special >> attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented >> geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and >> even to >> those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual >> need ). >> >> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to >> the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is >> especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the >> positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant >> from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the >> positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >> large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing >> quality and >> diversity of participation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> > Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >> > >> > Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. >> This >> > mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience >> > of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text >> > as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) >> > >> > Thank you >> > >> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > >> > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >> > fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and >> > significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with >> > greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects >> to be >> > considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants >> > representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified >> > individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true >> that >> > IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and >> > include more Civil Society participants known for their >> commitment >> > and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil >> Society >> > causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social >> > and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >> > governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for >> > financial reasons, the present participants from Government are >> > not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in >> > parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly >> > relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of >> the IGF >> > do not represent all participant segments and geographic >> regions. >> > This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but >> > availability of various categories of Travel Grants for >> different >> > classes of participants may help improve participation by those >> > not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has >> made some >> > funds available for representation from Less Developed >> Countries, >> > but such funding achieves a limited objective. >> > >> > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >> > costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >> > organizations and individual participants) would be several >> times >> > that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in >> organizing >> > the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an >> economist >> > estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >> > would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a >> > marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and >> > participants, which would amount to a small proportion of >> the true >> > cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of >> > participation are compromised. >> > >> > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >> > that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations >> > supported by unconditional grants from business, >> governments, well >> > funded non-governmental and international organizations and the >> > United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable >> > travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel >> > speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are >> > required to be well-received for participation), full and >> partial >> > fellowships to a large number of participants with special >> > attention to participants from unrepresented categories >> > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented >> participant >> > segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if >> > there is an individual need ). >> > >> > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse >> > opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to >> > the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be >> > built up from contributions that are unconditional (as >> opposed to >> > a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >> > about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply >> > that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic >> > conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and >> attend the >> > sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something >> > larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF >> > will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, >> > International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no >> > implied conditions on the positions to be taken by >> participants*)* >> > and may be awarded to panelists and participants >> unconditionally. >> > It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to >> have >> > significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >> > participation. >> > >> > >> > >> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> > >> > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > >> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hello Ginger >> > >> > Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the >> > complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but >> > don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a >> > few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow >> > as well, but not tonight. >> > >> > Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an >> > independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but >> > preferred not to. >> > >> > Shiva. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Shiva, >> > >> > I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, >> > and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet >> satisfied >> > with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to >> > continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus >> > on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the >> > statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the >> > thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete >> > questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? >> > >> > Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >> > >> > Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. >> > >> > Best, >> > Ginger >> > >> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> > >> > Hello Ginger >> > >> > You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather >> > than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it >> > also apply to Q3? >> > >> > There were further exchanges between Gurstein and >> me, and >> > the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you >> really >> > feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as >> > comment from IGC? >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >> > >> > >> > >> >>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of >> controversy >> > about this >> > concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I >> > wonder if we >> > could continue this discussion after the >> questionnaire is >> > submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted >> by the >> > August >> > deadline? >> > >> > In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, >> > which would >> > give you more freedom to make your point. Is that >> > acceptable to you? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Ginger >> > >> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> > >> > Hello Michael Gurstein >> > >> > A quick reply and a little more later. >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >>>> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >>>] >> > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM >> > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >>>; Michael Gurstein >> > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: >> > Comments on Siva's >> > proposed paras >> > >> > Hello Michael Gurstein, >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael >> > Gurstein >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >>>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > "The Internet Governance Caucus calls >> > upon the IGF >> > Secretariat to fund the IGF >> programs and >> > participation >> > substantially and significantly to >> > further enhance the >> > quality of programs with greater >> > diversity of >> > participation" sounds better? >> > YES... >> > Thanks. >> > >> > >> > >> > There are two aspects to be considered >> > in this >> > regard: a) >> > The absence or >> > non-participation of some of the >> world's >> > most renowned >> > Civil Society opinion >> > leaders is noticeable; Business >> Leaders >> > who are >> > otherwise >> > committed to >> > social and other governance issues off >> > IGF are not >> > seen at >> > the IGF; >> > Governments are not represented on a >> > level high enough >> > >> > HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY >> > "RENOWNED CIVIL >> > SOCIETY >> > OPINION LEADERS" >> > (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT >> LEAST TWO AND >> > PROBABLY MORE >> > INTERNAL >> > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT >> > AND CERTAINLY >> > NEITHER WE NOR THE >> > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO >> > IDENTIFY WHO THESE >> > "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >> > BE. >> > >> > AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> > SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >> > FOLKS FROM CIVIL >> > SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP >> > POSITIONS, OR >> > ARE WE >> > LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> > SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG >> > ISSUES, OR >> > ARE WE >> > LOOKING FOR LEADERS >> > OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS >> > ORGANIZATIONS WHO >> > HAVE A >> > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG >> ISSUES >> > (EACH OF THESE >> > CATEGORIES IS >> > PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE >> INCLUDED >> > AMBIGUOUSLY >> > UNDER >> > YOUR STATEMENT. >> > >> > IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF >> SUFFICIENT >> > IMPORTANCE >> > THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >> > NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE >> > SECRETARIAT CAN DO >> > ABOUT >> > THAT AND SIMILARLY >> > WITH GOVERNMENTS. >> > >> > I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... >> > >> > >> > I am sorry, I don't agree with your >> negative >> > interpretation of >> > such a positive suggestion. Are we to >> assert >> > that the >> > present >> > participants constitute a complete, >> > representative, and >> > ultimate group ? NO, BUT >> > I'M HAVING >> > TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA >> > SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >> > >> > I will have to browse a little to learn about >> Naomi >> > Klein; >> > Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds >> > familiar, but I >> > wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point >> > intended to >> > bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. >> > Looks like >> > you are reading between the lines of what I >> write. >> > >> > HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET >> > WOULD SEEM TO >> > ME TO BE RATHER >> > MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT >> > LEAST COULD TALK >> > WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG >> > ISSUES IMPACT >> > THEM AND >> > THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO >> DO ON >> > THE GROUND. >> > >> > Again an Indian reference - you have used the >> word >> > "Sewa" in >> > your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as >> someone >> > pushing >> > the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in >> > India, a >> > participant from India, I have faith in and >> respect >> > for my >> > country but I believe that in an International >> > context I am at >> > least a little wider than a national. I have >> been >> > inspired by >> > teachers who taught me in my school days that >> > "patriotism is a >> > prejudice" which is profound thinking which in >> > depths implies >> > that one must be beyond being patriotic and be >> > rather global. >> > >> > (Will come back this point and write more in >> > response to what >> > you have written a little later) >> > >> > Thank you. >> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >> > >> > MBG >> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > >> > M >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jul 13 13:24:47 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:24:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people from least developed countries. I do think that the IGF secretariat should have a reliable funding that ensure independence from private sector donations. I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on this latter part, I suggested to omit such details. jeanette Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Jeanette Hoffmann > > The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT > realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook unconstrained > by the present situation. Another million or two or ten or twenty for > that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the IGF body. > > 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a way > to find funds to answer thiso call. > > 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF in > eternal poverty, > > I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it not > mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with such a > suggestion and in its present form, is there anything seriously > objectionable with what it says about enhancing the quality of programs > with greater diversity of participation? > > Thank you. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another California > as Michael G. suggests. > Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support > people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to call > upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a > significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own > functioning. > If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should > come from or how it could be generated. > jeanette > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only > Jeanette who holds this view. > > Thanks, gp > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious > effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I > cannot agree with. Please consider the following > counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments > from others as well: > > [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then > edited by Ginger] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF > Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and > participation to further enhance the quality of programs > with greater diversity of participation. > > > The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses > listed below. I don't understand why we would want to "call > upon the IGF Secretariat to > > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in > light of the lack of such funds. > > jeanette > > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: > a) Present IGF participants representing various > stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with > diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF > participation needs to be further expanded to include > more Civil Society participants known for their > commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on > various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who are > otherwise committed to social and other governance > issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments > are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees > of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and > geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it > requires various efforts, but availability of various > categories of travel grants for participants may help > improve participation by those not attending the IGF for > want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available > for representation from Less Developed Countries, but > such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and > invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating > Governments, organizations and individual participants) > would be several times that of the actual outflow from > the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected > in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates > the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With > an increment in funding for travel support to panel > speaker and participants, which would amount to a small > proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of > panels and the diversity of participation could be improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus > recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary > allocations supported by grants from business, > governments, well funded non-governmental and > international organizations and the United Nations. The > fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead participants > (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial > fellowships to a greater number of participants with > special attention to participants from unrepresented > categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or > unrepresented participant segments and even to those > from affluent, represented regions if there is an > individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more > diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add > further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended > that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or > content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant > from a business trust with stated or implied conditions > about the positions to be taken). It is recommended that > the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant > impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of > participation. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, > > Have revised the statement and the changes made are > highlighted. This mail is best viewed with html / > mime settings. ( for the convenience of those whose > mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the > text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted > changes ) > > Thank you > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF > Secretariat to > fund the IGF programs and participation > substantially and > significantly to further enhance the quality of > programs with > greater diversity of participation. * *There are > two aspects to be > considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF > participants > representing various stakeholder groups are > highly qualified > individuals with diverse accomplishments but it > is also true that > IGF participation needs to be further expanded to > invite and > include more Civil Society participants known for > their commitment > and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on > various Civil Society > causes ; business leaders who are otherwise > committed to social > and other governance issues are not seen at the > IGF, and not all > governments are represented at the IGF ( and > though not for > financial reasons, the present participants from > Government are > not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this > sentence in > parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it > is not directly > relevant to the point ] and b) The present > participants of the IGF > do not represent all participant segments and > geographic regions. > This needs to be improved and it requires various > efforts, but > availability of various categories of Travel > Grants for different > classes of participants may help improve > participation by those > not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF > already has made some > funds available for representation from Less > Developed Countries, > but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible > and invisible > costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating > Governments, > organizations and individual participants) would > be several times > that of the actual outflow from the IGF > Secretariat in organizing > the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of > accounts. If an economist > estimates the total visible and invisible costs > of the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. > For want of a > marginal allocation for travel support to panel > speaker and > participants, which would amount to a small > proportion of the true > cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the > diversity of > participation are compromised. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance > Caucus recommends > that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary > allocations > supported by unconditional grants from business, > governments, well > funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the > United Nations. The fund may extend > uncompromising, comfortable > travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead > participants (panel > speakers, program organizers, who are largely > invitees who are > required to be well-received for participation), > full and partial > fellowships to a large number of participants > with special > attention to participants from unrepresented > categories > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or > unrepresented participant > segments and even to those from affluent, > represented regions if > there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in > really diverse > opinions to the IGF from experts who would add > further value to > the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a > fund may be > built up from contributions that are > unconditional (as opposed to > a grant from a business trust with stated or > implied conditions > about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' > does not imply > that funds may have to be disbursed without even > the basic > conditions that the recipient should attend the > IGF and attend the > sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" > means something > larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel > Grants whereby IGF > will pool funds from Business Corporations, > Governments, > International Organizations, well funded NGOs and > UN with no > implied conditions on the positions to be taken > by participants*)* > and may be awarded to panelists and participants > unconditionally. > It is recommended that the IGF create a fund > large enough to have > significant impact in further enhancing quality > and diversity of > participation. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy > >> wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > Will have just a little time to spend on this, > will review the > complete questionnaire comments, and reword the > Q6 comment, but > don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving > for the city in a > few hours for a short trip, will find some time > to work tomorrow > as well, but not tonight. > > Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather > than as an > independent proposal, which I could have sent it > on my own but > preferred not to. > > Shiva. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque > > >> wrote: > > Hi Shiva, > > I was referring to Q6, as several of us - > including myself, > and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are > not yet satisfied > with the wording on the funding concept. You > are welcome to > continue the discussion and see if you can > reach a consensus > on it, but I suspect that by the time > everyone is happy, the > statement won't say much of anything. Could > you review the > thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the > complete > questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? > > Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > > Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. > > Best, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > You would like this submitted as my own > comment, rather > than as an IGC statement? Is this only on > Q6 or does it > also apply to Q3? > > There were further exchanges between > Gurstein and me, and > the misunderstanding are being clarified. > Would you really > feel that the entire statement has to be > dropped as > comment from IGC? > > Thanks. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque > > > >>> wrote: > > Shiva, As there seems to be quite a > bit of controversy > about this > concept and wording, and we are very > short on time, I > wonder if we > could continue this discussion after > the questionnaire is > submitted, perhaps for comments to be > submitted by the > August > deadline? > > In the meantime, you could submit your > own comment, > which would > give you more freedom to make your > point. Is that > acceptable to you? > > Regards, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Michael Gurstein > > A quick reply and a little more later. > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, > Michael Gurstein > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > Hi, > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, > 2009 6:18 PM > *To:* > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>>; Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] > Question 6: > Comments on Siva's > proposed paras > > Hello Michael Gurstein, > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at > 2:50 AM, Michael > Gurstein > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > "The Internet > Governance Caucus calls > upon the IGF > Secretariat to fund the > IGF programs and > participation > substantially and > significantly to > further enhance the > quality of programs > with greater > diversity of > participation" sounds > better? YES... > Thanks. > > > > There are two aspects > to be considered > in this > regard: a) > The absence or > non-participation of > some of the world's > most renowned > Civil Society opinion > leaders is noticeable; > Business Leaders > who are > otherwise > committed to > social and other > governance issues off > IGF are not > seen at > the IGF; > Governments are not > represented on a > level high enough > > HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY > IS MEANT BY > "RENOWNED CIVIL > SOCIETY > OPINION LEADERS" > (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE > ARE AT LEAST TWO AND > PROBABLY MORE > INTERNAL > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT > SIMPLE STATEMENT > AND CERTAINLY > NEITHER WE NOR THE > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE > EXPECTED TO > IDENTIFY WHO THESE > "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > BE. > > AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING > FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > FOLKS FROM CIVIL > SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS > IN LEADERSHIP > POSITIONS, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE > WHO UNDERSTAND IG > ISSUES, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING FOR LEADERS > OF RESPONSIBLE > REPRESENTATIVE CS > ORGANIZATIONS WHO > HAVE A > > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES > (EACH OF THESE > CATEGORIES IS > PROBABLY DISCREET AND > COULD BE INCLUDED > AMBIGUOUSLY > UNDER > YOUR STATEMENT. > > IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT > IS OF SUFFICIENT > IMPORTANCE > THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF > NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH > WE OR THE > SECRETARIAT CAN DO > ABOUT > THAT AND SIMILARLY > WITH GOVERNMENTS. > > I THINK THIS PARA > SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > I am sorry, I don't agree > with your negative > interpretation of > such a positive suggestion. > Are we to assert > that the > present > participants constitute a > complete, > representative, and > ultimate group ? > NO, BUT > I'M HAVING > TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR > VENDANA > SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO > CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > I will have to browse a little to > learn about Naomi > Klein; > Vendana Shiva is an Indian name > that sounds > familiar, but I > wasn't thinking of these names, > nor was my point > intended to > bring in anyone whom I know or > associated with. > Looks like > you are reading between the lines > of what I write. > > HAVING THE HEAD OF > SEWA OR K-NET > WOULD SEEM TO > ME TO BE RATHER > MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR > NOT, AS THEY AT > LEAST COULD TALK > WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE > ABOUT HOW IG > ISSUES IMPACT > THEM AND > THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY > ARE TRYING TO DO ON > THE GROUND. > > Again an Indian reference - you > have used the word > "Sewa" in > your comment. Perhaps you are > reading me as someone > pushing > the Indian point of view? I am > not. I am born in > India, a > participant from India, I have > faith in and respect > for my > country but I believe that in an > International > context I am at > least a little wider than a > national. I have been > inspired by > teachers who taught me in my > school days that > "patriotism is a > prejudice" which is profound > thinking which in > depths implies > that one must be beyond being > patriotic and be > rather global. > > (Will come back this point and > write more in > response to what > you have written a little later) > > Thank you. > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > MBG > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > M > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jul 13 13:26:53 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:26:53 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871931A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in such a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But UN member states can do this. I agree that this issue has to be raised but we should be very carefully not to feed any illusions and to organoze unrealistic pressure into wrong directions. Look what happend with the Digital Solidarity Fund. The question of financing the IGF should be on the agenda of the UN GA in 2010 when the GA has to draft a resolution for the continuation of the IGF if member states plan to continue with the IGF. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mo 13.07.2009 19:17 An: Jeanette Hofmann Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque; Michael Gurstein Betreff: Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras Hello Jeanette Hoffmann The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook unconstrained by the present situation. Another million or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the IGF body. 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a way to find funds to answer thiso call. 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF in eternal poverty, I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it not mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with such a suggestion and in its present form, is there anything seriously objectionable with what it says about enhancing the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation? Thank you. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another California as Michael G. suggests. Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to call upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own functioning. If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should come from or how it could be generated. jeanette Ginger Paque wrote: Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only Jeanette who holds this view. Thanks, gp Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Ginger Paque wrote: Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from others as well: [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by Ginger] The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. I don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF Secretariat to > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the lack of such funds. jeanette There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts.. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be improved. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of participation. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes ) Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for financial reasons, the present participants from Government are not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well-received for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of participation. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: Hello Ginger Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow as well, but not tonight. Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but preferred not to. Shiva. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: Hi Shiva, I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think? Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. Best, Ginger Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Hello Ginger You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it also apply to Q3? There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as comment from IGC? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque >> wrote: Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the August deadline? In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would give you more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you? Regards, Ginger Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Hello Michael Gurstein A quick reply and a little more later. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > >>> wrote: Hi, -----Original Message----- *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > >>] *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>; Michael Gurstein *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's proposed paras Hello Michael Gurstein, On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein > >>> wrote: "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation" sounds better? YES... Thanks. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a level high enough HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL SOCIETY OPINION LEADERS" (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND PROBABLY MORE INTERNAL CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NEITHER WE NOR THE SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT BE. AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR FOLKS FROM CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR LEADERS OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE A POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES IS PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY UNDER YOUR STATEMENT. IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO ABOUT THAT AND SIMILARLY WITH GOVERNMENTS. I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative interpretation of such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the present participants constitute a complete, representative, and ultimate group ? NO, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein; Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point intended to bring in anyone whom I know or associated with. Looks like you are reading between the lines of what I write. HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE RATHER MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT THEM AND THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND. Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a participant from India, I have faith in and respect for my country but I believe that in an International context I am at least a little wider than a national. I have been inspired by teachers who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths implies that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global. (Will come back this point and write more in response to what you have written a little later) Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. MBG Sivasubramanian Muthusamy M ____________________________________________________________ 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 13:50:33 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:20:33 -0430 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to continue this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, which is the following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster greater diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We mention in for example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be significantly improved. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need). Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > As I said before, I support funding the participation of people from > least developed countries. I do think that the IGF secretariat should > have a reliable funding that ensure independence from private sector > donations. > > I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class > flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on this > latter part, I suggested to omit such details. > jeanette > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann >> >> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT >> realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook >> unconstrained by the present situation. Another million or two or ten >> or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the IGF body. >> >> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a >> way to find funds to answer thiso call. >> >> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF >> in eternal poverty, >> >> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it >> not mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with >> such a suggestion and in its present form, is there anything >> seriously objectionable with what it says about enhancing the quality >> of programs with greater diversity of participation? >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >> wrote: >> >> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another California >> as Michael G. suggests. >> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support >> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to call >> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a >> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own >> functioning. >> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should >> come from or how it could be generated. >> jeanette >> >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only >> Jeanette who holds this view. >> >> Thanks, gp >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious >> effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I >> cannot agree with. Please consider the following >> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments >> from others as well: >> >> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then >> edited by Ginger] >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and >> participation to further enhance the quality of programs >> with greater diversity of participation. >> >> >> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses >> listed below. I don't understand why we would want to "call >> upon the IGF Secretariat to >> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in >> light of the lack of such funds. >> >> jeanette >> >> >> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: >> a) Present IGF participants representing various >> stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with >> diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF >> participation needs to be further expanded to include >> more Civil Society participants known for their >> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who are >> otherwise committed to social and other governance >> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments >> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees >> of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and >> geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it >> requires various efforts, but availability of various >> categories of travel grants for participants may help >> improve participation by those not attending the IGF for >> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available >> for representation from Less Developed Countries, but >> such funding achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and >> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >> Governments, organizations and individual participants) >> would be several times that of the actual outflow from >> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates >> the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With >> an increment in funding for travel support to panel >> speaker and participants, which would amount to a small >> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of >> panels and the diversity of participation could be >> improved. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus >> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary >> allocations supported by grants from business, >> governments, well funded non-governmental and >> international organizations and the United Nations. The >> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead participants >> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial >> fellowships to a greater number of participants with >> special attention to participants from unrepresented >> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >> unrepresented participant segments and even to those >> from affluent, represented regions if there is an >> individual need ). >> >> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more >> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >> further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended >> that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or >> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant >> from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >> about the positions to be taken). It is recommended that >> the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant >> impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >> participation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >> >> Have revised the statement and the changes made are >> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with html / >> mime settings. ( for the convenience of those whose >> mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the >> text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted >> changes ) >> >> Thank you >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >> Secretariat to >> fund the IGF programs and participation >> substantially and >> significantly to further enhance the quality of >> programs with >> greater diversity of participation. * *There are >> two aspects to be >> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF >> participants >> representing various stakeholder groups are >> highly qualified >> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it >> is also true that >> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to >> invite and >> include more Civil Society participants known for >> their commitment >> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >> various Civil Society >> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise >> committed to social >> and other governance issues are not seen at the >> IGF, and not all >> governments are represented at the IGF ( and >> though not for >> financial reasons, the present participants from >> Government are >> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this >> sentence in >> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it >> is not directly >> relevant to the point ] and b) The present >> participants of the IGF >> do not represent all participant segments and >> geographic regions. >> This needs to be improved and it requires various >> efforts, but >> availability of various categories of Travel >> Grants for different >> classes of participants may help improve >> participation by those >> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF >> already has made some >> funds available for representation from Less >> Developed Countries, >> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible >> and invisible >> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >> Governments, >> organizations and individual participants) would >> be several times >> that of the actual outflow from the IGF >> Secretariat in organizing >> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of >> accounts. If an economist >> estimates the total visible and invisible costs >> of the IGF, it >> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. >> For want of a >> marginal allocation for travel support to panel >> speaker and >> participants, which would amount to a small >> proportion of the true >> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the >> diversity of >> participation are compromised. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance >> Caucus recommends >> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary >> allocations >> supported by unconditional grants from business, >> governments, well >> funded non-governmental and international >> organizations and the >> United Nations. The fund may extend >> uncompromising, comfortable >> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead >> participants (panel >> speakers, program organizers, who are largely >> invitees who are >> required to be well-received for participation), >> full and partial >> fellowships to a large number of participants >> with special >> attention to participants from unrepresented >> categories >> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >> unrepresented participant >> segments and even to those from affluent, >> represented regions if >> there is an individual need ). >> >> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in >> really diverse >> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >> further value to >> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a >> fund may be >> built up from contributions that are >> unconditional (as opposed to >> a grant from a business trust with stated or >> implied conditions >> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' >> does not imply >> that funds may have to be disbursed without even >> the basic >> conditions that the recipient should attend the >> IGF and attend the >> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" >> means something >> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel >> Grants whereby IGF >> will pool funds from Business Corporations, >> Governments, >> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and >> UN with no >> implied conditions on the positions to be taken >> by participants*)* >> and may be awarded to panelists and participants >> unconditionally. >> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >> large enough to have >> significant impact in further enhancing quality >> and diversity of >> participation. >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian >> Muthusamy > >> > >> wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> Will have just a little time to spend on this, >> will review the >> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the >> Q6 comment, but >> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving >> for the city in a >> few hours for a short trip, will find some time >> to work tomorrow >> as well, but not tonight. >> >> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather >> than as an >> independent proposal, which I could have sent it >> on my own but >> preferred not to. >> >> Shiva. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >> >> > >> wrote: >> >> Hi Shiva, >> >> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - >> including myself, >> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are >> not yet satisfied >> with the wording on the funding concept. You >> are welcome to >> continue the discussion and see if you can >> reach a consensus >> on it, but I suspect that by the time >> everyone is happy, the >> statement won't say much of anything. Could >> you review the >> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the >> complete >> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you >> think? >> >> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >> >> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to >> discuss. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> You would like this submitted as my own >> comment, rather >> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on >> Q6 or does it >> also apply to Q3? >> >> There were further exchanges between >> Gurstein and me, and >> the misunderstanding are being clarified. >> Would you really >> feel that the entire statement has to be >> dropped as >> comment from IGC? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, >> Ginger Paque >> > > > >> > > >>> wrote: >> >> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a >> bit of controversy >> about this >> concept and wording, and we are very >> short on time, I >> wonder if we >> could continue this discussion after >> the questionnaire is >> submitted, perhaps for comments to be >> submitted by the >> August >> deadline? >> >> In the meantime, you could submit your >> own comment, >> which would >> give you more freedom to make your >> point. Is that >> acceptable to you? >> >> Regards, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein >> >> A quick reply and a little more >> later. >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, >> Michael Gurstein >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >>>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* Sivasubramanian >> Muthusamy >> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >>>] >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, >> 2009 6:18 PM >> *To:* >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >>>; Michael >> Gurstein >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] >> Question 6: >> Comments on Siva's >> proposed paras >> >> Hello Michael Gurstein, >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >> 2:50 AM, Michael >> Gurstein >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >>>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "The Internet >> Governance Caucus calls >> upon the IGF >> Secretariat to fund the >> IGF programs and >> participation >> substantially and >> significantly to >> further enhance the >> quality of programs >> with greater >> diversity of >> participation" sounds >> better? YES... >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> There are two aspects >> to be considered >> in this >> regard: a) >> The absence or >> non-participation of >> some of the world's >> most renowned >> Civil Society opinion >> leaders is noticeable; >> Business Leaders >> who are >> otherwise >> committed to >> social and other >> governance issues off >> IGF are not >> seen at >> the IGF; >> Governments are not >> represented on a >> level high enough >> >> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY >> IS MEANT BY >> "RENOWNED CIVIL >> SOCIETY >> OPINION LEADERS" >> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE >> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >> PROBABLY MORE >> INTERNAL >> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT >> SIMPLE STATEMENT >> AND CERTAINLY >> NEITHER WE NOR THE >> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE >> EXPECTED TO >> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >> BE. >> >> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING >> FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS >> IN LEADERSHIP >> POSITIONS, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE >> WHO UNDERSTAND IG >> ISSUES, OR >> ARE WE >> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >> OF RESPONSIBLE >> REPRESENTATIVE CS >> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >> HAVE A >> >> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >> (EACH OF THESE >> CATEGORIES IS >> PROBABLY DISCREET AND >> COULD BE INCLUDED >> AMBIGUOUSLY >> UNDER >> YOUR STATEMENT. >> >> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT >> IS OF SUFFICIENT >> IMPORTANCE >> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH >> WE OR THE >> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >> ABOUT >> THAT AND SIMILARLY >> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >> >> I THINK THIS PARA >> SHOULD BE DROPPED... >> >> >> I am sorry, I don't agree >> with your negative >> interpretation of >> such a positive suggestion. >> Are we to assert >> that the >> present >> participants constitute a >> complete, >> representative, and >> ultimate group >> ? NO, BUT >> I'M HAVING >> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR >> VENDANA >> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO >> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >> >> I will have to browse a little to >> learn about Naomi >> Klein; >> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name >> that sounds >> familiar, but I >> wasn't thinking of these names, >> nor was my point >> intended to >> bring in anyone whom I know or >> associated with. >> Looks like >> you are reading between the lines >> of what I write. >> >> HAVING THE HEAD OF >> SEWA OR K-NET >> WOULD SEEM TO >> ME TO BE RATHER >> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR >> NOT, AS THEY AT >> LEAST COULD TALK >> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE >> ABOUT HOW IG >> ISSUES IMPACT >> THEM AND >> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY >> ARE TRYING TO DO ON >> THE GROUND. >> >> Again an Indian reference - you >> have used the word >> "Sewa" in >> your comment. Perhaps you are >> reading me as someone >> pushing >> the Indian point of view? I am >> not. I am born in >> India, a >> participant from India, I have >> faith in and respect >> for my >> country but I believe that in an >> International >> context I am at >> least a little wider than a >> national. I have been >> inspired by >> teachers who taught me in my >> school days that >> "patriotism is a >> prejudice" which is profound >> thinking which in >> depths implies >> that one must be beyond being >> patriotic and be >> rather global. >> >> (Will come back this point and >> write more in >> response to what >> you have written a little later) >> >> Thank you. >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >> >> MBG >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> M >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From graciela at rits.org.br Mon Jul 13 16:31:20 2009 From: graciela at rits.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:31:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] Second Latin American and Caribbean Preparatory Meeting for the IGF Message-ID: <4A5B9998.7080704@rits.org.br> Dear all, [sorry for cross posting] The registrations for the Second Latin American and Caribbean Preparatory Meeting for the IGF are now open. The meeting will be held in Rio de Janeiro, in August, 2009. The proposal of the regional preparatory meetings of the IGF is being considered since the Rio de Janeiro's IGF meeting in 2007, when it was identified the need for a more intense regionalization of the IGF process. In the Egypt meeting there will be specific spaces in the schedule for regional inputs, where there will be presented the priorities of each region, discussed in the preparatory meetings. To effectively take advantage of the space dedicated to Latin America and the Caribbean, the Nupef Institute, RITS, APC, (Association for Progressive Communications) and LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Registry) are organizing the Second Latin American and Caribbean Preparatory Meeting for the IGF - that will happen in Rio de Janeiro from August 11th to August 13th, at the Novo Mundo Hotel. This meeting has the goal to inform and raise awareness among LAC players about the topics and discussions of the global IGF, to promote the debate on central topics of the IGF 2009 and to identify the priorities of the region in each of the topics. The first meeting was organized by the same institutions, in Montevideo, in 2008, and brought important inputs for the debates that occured in the IGF Hyderabad. Detailed information about the agenda and the event organization is avalable in the following web site: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/english/ For further information about the Internet Governance Forum please visit: http://www.intgovforum.org/ Results and information of the Regional Preparatory Meeting of the IGF 2008: http://lacnic.net/en/eventos/mvd2008/igf.html regards, Graciela ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jul 13 16:53:58 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:53:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5B9EE6.4080602@wzb.eu> Hi Ginger, what is wrong with Wolfgang's suggestion: With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in such a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But UN member states can do this. jeanette Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to continue this > discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, which is the > following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply > to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF programs and > participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster > greater diversity of participation. > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant > segments and geographic regions. We mention in for example: Indigenous > peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and > particularly those who are the poorest of > the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting > peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of > broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities need > to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of > various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve > attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF > already has made some funds available for representation from Less > Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in > the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible > and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is > already being spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel > support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small > proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and > the diversity of participation could be significantly improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the > IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from > business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel > grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), > full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with > special attention to participants from unrepresented categories > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant > segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there > is an individual need). > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people from >> least developed countries. I do think that the IGF secretariat should >> have a reliable funding that ensure independence from private sector >> donations. >> >> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class >> flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on this >> latter part, I suggested to omit such details. >> jeanette >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann >>> >>> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT >>> realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook >>> unconstrained by the present situation. Another million or two or ten >>> or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the IGF body. >>> >>> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a >>> way to find funds to answer thiso call. >>> >>> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF >>> in eternal poverty, >>> >>> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it >>> not mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with >>> such a suggestion and in its present form, is there anything >>> seriously objectionable with what it says about enhancing the quality >>> of programs with greater diversity of participation? >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another California >>> as Michael G. suggests. >>> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support >>> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to call >>> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a >>> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own >>> functioning. >>> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should >>> come from or how it could be generated. >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only >>> Jeanette who holds this view. >>> >>> Thanks, gp >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious >>> effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I >>> cannot agree with. Please consider the following >>> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments >>> from others as well: >>> >>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then >>> edited by Ginger] >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and >>> participation to further enhance the quality of programs >>> with greater diversity of participation. >>> >>> >>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses >>> listed below. I don't understand why we would want to "call >>> upon the IGF Secretariat to >>> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in >>> light of the lack of such funds. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: >>> a) Present IGF participants representing various >>> stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with >>> diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF >>> participation needs to be further expanded to include >>> more Civil Society participants known for their >>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >>> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who are >>> otherwise committed to social and other governance >>> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments >>> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees >>> of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and >>> geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it >>> requires various efforts, but availability of various >>> categories of travel grants for participants may help >>> improve participation by those not attending the IGF for >>> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available >>> for representation from Less Developed Countries, but >>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>> >>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and >>> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>> Governments, organizations and individual participants) >>> would be several times that of the actual outflow from >>> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates >>> the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With >>> an increment in funding for travel support to panel >>> speaker and participants, which would amount to a small >>> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of >>> panels and the diversity of participation could be >>> improved. >>> >>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus >>> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary >>> allocations supported by grants from business, >>> governments, well funded non-governmental and >>> international organizations and the United Nations. The >>> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead participants >>> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial >>> fellowships to a greater number of participants with >>> special attention to participants from unrepresented >>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those >>> from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>> individual need ). >>> >>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more >>> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >>> further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended >>> that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or >>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant >>> from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >>> about the positions to be taken). It is recommended that >>> the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant >>> impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>> participation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>> >>> Have revised the statement and the changes made are >>> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with html / >>> mime settings. ( for the convenience of those whose >>> mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the >>> text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted >>> changes ) >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>> Secretariat to >>> fund the IGF programs and participation >>> substantially and >>> significantly to further enhance the quality of >>> programs with >>> greater diversity of participation. * *There are >>> two aspects to be >>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF >>> participants >>> representing various stakeholder groups are >>> highly qualified >>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it >>> is also true that >>> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to >>> invite and >>> include more Civil Society participants known for >>> their commitment >>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >>> various Civil Society >>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise >>> committed to social >>> and other governance issues are not seen at the >>> IGF, and not all >>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and >>> though not for >>> financial reasons, the present participants from >>> Government are >>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this >>> sentence in >>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it >>> is not directly >>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present >>> participants of the IGF >>> do not represent all participant segments and >>> geographic regions. >>> This needs to be improved and it requires various >>> efforts, but >>> availability of various categories of Travel >>> Grants for different >>> classes of participants may help improve >>> participation by those >>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF >>> already has made some >>> funds available for representation from Less >>> Developed Countries, >>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>> >>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible >>> and invisible >>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>> Governments, >>> organizations and individual participants) would >>> be several times >>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF >>> Secretariat in organizing >>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of >>> accounts. If an economist >>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs >>> of the IGF, it >>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. >>> For want of a >>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel >>> speaker and >>> participants, which would amount to a small >>> proportion of the true >>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the >>> diversity of >>> participation are compromised. >>> >>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance >>> Caucus recommends >>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary >>> allocations >>> supported by unconditional grants from business, >>> governments, well >>> funded non-governmental and international >>> organizations and the >>> United Nations. The fund may extend >>> uncompromising, comfortable >>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead >>> participants (panel >>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely >>> invitees who are >>> required to be well-received for participation), >>> full and partial >>> fellowships to a large number of participants >>> with special >>> attention to participants from unrepresented >>> categories >>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>> unrepresented participant >>> segments and even to those from affluent, >>> represented regions if >>> there is an individual need ). >>> >>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in >>> really diverse >>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >>> further value to >>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a >>> fund may be >>> built up from contributions that are >>> unconditional (as opposed to >>> a grant from a business trust with stated or >>> implied conditions >>> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' >>> does not imply >>> that funds may have to be disbursed without even >>> the basic >>> conditions that the recipient should attend the >>> IGF and attend the >>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" >>> means something >>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel >>> Grants whereby IGF >>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, >>> Governments, >>> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and >>> UN with no >>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken >>> by participants*)* >>> and may be awarded to panelists and participants >>> unconditionally. >>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >>> large enough to have >>> significant impact in further enhancing quality >>> and diversity of >>> participation. >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>> >>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian >>> Muthusamy >> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger >>> >>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, >>> will review the >>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the >>> Q6 comment, but >>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving >>> for the city in a >>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time >>> to work tomorrow >>> as well, but not tonight. >>> >>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather >>> than as an >>> independent proposal, which I could have sent it >>> on my own but >>> preferred not to. >>> >>> Shiva. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Shiva, >>> >>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - >>> including myself, >>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are >>> not yet satisfied >>> with the wording on the funding concept. You >>> are welcome to >>> continue the discussion and see if you can >>> reach a consensus >>> on it, but I suspect that by the time >>> everyone is happy, the >>> statement won't say much of anything. Could >>> you review the >>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the >>> complete >>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you >>> think? >>> >>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>> >>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to >>> discuss. >>> >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger >>> >>> You would like this submitted as my own >>> comment, rather >>> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on >>> Q6 or does it >>> also apply to Q3? >>> >>> There were further exchanges between >>> Gurstein and me, and >>> the misunderstanding are being clarified. >>> Would you really >>> feel that the entire statement has to be >>> dropped as >>> comment from IGC? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, >>> Ginger Paque >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a >>> bit of controversy >>> about this >>> concept and wording, and we are very >>> short on time, I >>> wonder if we >>> could continue this discussion after >>> the questionnaire is >>> submitted, perhaps for comments to be >>> submitted by the >>> August >>> deadline? >>> >>> In the meantime, you could submit your >>> own comment, >>> which would >>> give you more freedom to make your >>> point. Is that >>> acceptable to you? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>> >>> A quick reply and a little more >>> later. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, >>> Michael Gurstein >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* Sivasubramanian >>> Muthusamy >>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>>] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, >>> 2009 6:18 PM >>> *To:* >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>>; Michael >>> Gurstein >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] >>> Question 6: >>> Comments on Siva's >>> proposed paras >>> >>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>> 2:50 AM, Michael >>> Gurstein >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "The Internet >>> Governance Caucus calls >>> upon the IGF >>> Secretariat to fund the >>> IGF programs and >>> participation >>> substantially and >>> significantly to >>> further enhance the >>> quality of programs >>> with greater >>> diversity of >>> participation" sounds >>> better? YES... >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are two aspects >>> to be considered >>> in this >>> regard: a) >>> The absence or >>> non-participation of >>> some of the world's >>> most renowned >>> Civil Society opinion >>> leaders is noticeable; >>> Business Leaders >>> who are >>> otherwise >>> committed to >>> social and other >>> governance issues off >>> IGF are not >>> seen at >>> the IGF; >>> Governments are not >>> represented on a >>> level high enough >>> >>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY >>> IS MEANT BY >>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>> SOCIETY >>> OPINION LEADERS" >>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE >>> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >>> PROBABLY MORE >>> INTERNAL >>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT >>> SIMPLE STATEMENT >>> AND CERTAINLY >>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE >>> EXPECTED TO >>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >>> BE. >>> >>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING >>> FOR CIVIL >>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS >>> IN LEADERSHIP >>> POSITIONS, OR >>> ARE WE >>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE >>> WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>> ISSUES, OR >>> ARE WE >>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>> OF RESPONSIBLE >>> REPRESENTATIVE CS >>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>> HAVE A >>> >>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>> (EACH OF THESE >>> CATEGORIES IS >>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND >>> COULD BE INCLUDED >>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>> UNDER >>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>> >>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT >>> IS OF SUFFICIENT >>> IMPORTANCE >>> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH >>> WE OR THE >>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>> ABOUT >>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>> >>> I THINK THIS PARA >>> SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>> >>> >>> I am sorry, I don't agree >>> with your negative >>> interpretation of >>> such a positive suggestion. >>> Are we to assert >>> that the >>> present >>> participants constitute a >>> complete, >>> representative, and >>> ultimate group >>> ? NO, BUT >>> I'M HAVING >>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR >>> VENDANA >>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO >>> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>> >>> I will have to browse a little to >>> learn about Naomi >>> Klein; >>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name >>> that sounds >>> familiar, but I >>> wasn't thinking of these names, >>> nor was my point >>> intended to >>> bring in anyone whom I know or >>> associated with. >>> Looks like >>> you are reading between the lines >>> of what I write. >>> >>> HAVING THE HEAD OF >>> SEWA OR K-NET >>> WOULD SEEM TO >>> ME TO BE RATHER >>> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR >>> NOT, AS THEY AT >>> LEAST COULD TALK >>> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE >>> ABOUT HOW IG >>> ISSUES IMPACT >>> THEM AND >>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY >>> ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>> THE GROUND. >>> >>> Again an Indian reference - you >>> have used the word >>> "Sewa" in >>> your comment. Perhaps you are >>> reading me as someone >>> pushing >>> the Indian point of view? I am >>> not. I am born in >>> India, a >>> participant from India, I have >>> faith in and respect >>> for my >>> country but I believe that in an >>> International >>> context I am at >>> least a little wider than a >>> national. I have been >>> inspired by >>> teachers who taught me in my >>> school days that >>> "patriotism is a >>> prejudice" which is profound >>> thinking which in >>> depths implies >>> that one must be beyond being >>> patriotic and be >>> rather global. >>> >>> (Will come back this point and >>> write more in >>> response to what >>> you have written a little later) >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>> >>> MBG >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 17:03:55 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:33:55 -0430 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B9EE6.4080602@wzb.eu> References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> <4A5B9EE6.4080602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A5BA13B.50707@gmail.com> Sorry, my mistake, so we would change the first line to read: The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply to **the UN Member States** for substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster greater diversity of participation. Is that correct? Ginger Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Ginger, what is wrong with Wolfgang's suggestion: > > With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member > States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in such > a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But UN member > states can do this. > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply to the UN Member States for substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster greater diversity of participation. > jeanette > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to continue >> this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, which is the >> following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >> apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF >> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of programs >> to foster greater diversity of participation. >> >> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF >> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly >> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also >> true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include >> more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and >> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >> causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all >> participant segments and geographic regions. We mention in for >> example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, >> rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of >> the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting >> peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an >> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet >> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities >> and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in >> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of >> broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities >> need to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability >> of various categories of travel grants for participants may help >> improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of >> funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for >> representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding >> achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs >> to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and >> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual >> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total >> visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, >> which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding >> for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would >> amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the >> quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be >> significantly improved. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that >> the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants >> from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and >> international organizations and the United Nations. The fund could >> extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, >> program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number >> of participants with special attention to participants from >> unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >> unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, >> represented regions if there is an individual need). >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people from >>> least developed countries. I do think that the IGF secretariat >>> should have a reliable funding that ensure independence from private >>> sector donations. >>> >>> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class >>> flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on this >>> latter part, I suggested to omit such details. >>> jeanette >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann >>>> >>>> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT >>>> realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook >>>> unconstrained by the present situation. Another million or two or >>>> ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the >>>> IGF body. >>>> >>>> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a >>>> way to find funds to answer thiso call. >>>> >>>> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF >>>> in eternal poverty, >>>> >>>> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it >>>> not mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with >>>> such a suggestion and in its present form, is there anything >>>> seriously objectionable with what it says about enhancing the >>>> quality of programs with greater diversity of participation? >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another >>>> California >>>> as Michael G. suggests. >>>> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support >>>> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to >>>> call >>>> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a >>>> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own >>>> functioning. >>>> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should >>>> come from or how it could be generated. >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> >>>> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only >>>> Jeanette who holds this view. >>>> >>>> Thanks, gp >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious >>>> effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I >>>> cannot agree with. Please consider the following >>>> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments >>>> from others as well: >>>> >>>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and >>>> then >>>> edited by Ginger] >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>>> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and >>>> participation to further enhance the quality of >>>> programs >>>> with greater diversity of participation. >>>> >>>> >>>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses >>>> listed below. I don't understand why we would want to >>>> "call >>>> upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in >>>> light of the lack of such funds. >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: >>>> a) Present IGF participants representing various >>>> stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals >>>> with >>>> diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF >>>> participation needs to be further expanded to include >>>> more Civil Society participants known for their >>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF >>>> arena on >>>> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who >>>> are >>>> otherwise committed to social and other governance >>>> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>> governments >>>> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present >>>> attendees >>>> of the IGF do not represent all participant >>>> segments and >>>> geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it >>>> requires various efforts, but availability of various >>>> categories of travel grants for participants may help >>>> improve participation by those not attending the >>>> IGF for >>>> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds >>>> available >>>> for representation from Less Developed Countries, but >>>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>> >>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and >>>> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>>> Governments, organizations and individual >>>> participants) >>>> would be several times that of the actual outflow from >>>> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as >>>> reflected >>>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates >>>> the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With >>>> an increment in funding for travel support to panel >>>> speaker and participants, which would amount to a >>>> small >>>> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of >>>> panels and the diversity of participation could be >>>> improved. >>>> >>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus >>>> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary >>>> allocations supported by grants from business, >>>> governments, well funded non-governmental and >>>> international organizations and the United Nations. >>>> The >>>> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead participants >>>> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial >>>> fellowships to a greater number of participants with >>>> special attention to participants from unrepresented >>>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those >>>> from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>> individual need ). >>>> >>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more >>>> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >>>> further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended >>>> that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or >>>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a >>>> grant >>>> from a business trust with stated or implied >>>> conditions >>>> about the positions to be taken). It is recommended >>>> that >>>> the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant >>>> impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>>> participation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>> >>>> Have revised the statement and the changes made >>>> are >>>> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with html / >>>> mime settings. ( for the convenience of those >>>> whose >>>> mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the >>>> text as a PDF file which would show the >>>> highlighted >>>> changes ) >>>> >>>> Thank you >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon >>>> the IGF >>>> Secretariat to >>>> fund the IGF programs and participation >>>> substantially and >>>> significantly to further enhance the quality of >>>> programs with >>>> greater diversity of participation. * *There >>>> are >>>> two aspects to be >>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF >>>> participants >>>> representing various stakeholder groups are >>>> highly qualified >>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it >>>> is also true that >>>> IGF participation needs to be further >>>> expanded to >>>> invite and >>>> include more Civil Society participants >>>> known for >>>> their commitment >>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >>>> various Civil Society >>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise >>>> committed to social >>>> and other governance issues are not seen at the >>>> IGF, and not all >>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and >>>> though not for >>>> financial reasons, the present participants >>>> from >>>> Government are >>>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ >>>> this >>>> sentence in >>>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it >>>> is not directly >>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present >>>> participants of the IGF >>>> do not represent all participant segments and >>>> geographic regions. >>>> This needs to be improved and it requires >>>> various >>>> efforts, but >>>> availability of various categories of Travel >>>> Grants for different >>>> classes of participants may help improve >>>> participation by those >>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF >>>> already has made some >>>> funds available for representation from Less >>>> Developed Countries, >>>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>> >>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible >>>> and invisible >>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>>> Governments, >>>> organizations and individual participants) >>>> would >>>> be several times >>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF >>>> Secretariat in organizing >>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of >>>> accounts. If an economist >>>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs >>>> of the IGF, it >>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already >>>> spent. >>>> For want of a >>>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel >>>> speaker and >>>> participants, which would amount to a small >>>> proportion of the true >>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the >>>> diversity of >>>> participation are compromised. >>>> >>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance >>>> Caucus recommends >>>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary >>>> allocations >>>> supported by unconditional grants from >>>> business, >>>> governments, well >>>> funded non-governmental and international >>>> organizations and the >>>> United Nations. The fund may extend >>>> uncompromising, comfortable >>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead >>>> participants (panel >>>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely >>>> invitees who are >>>> required to be well-received for >>>> participation), >>>> full and partial >>>> fellowships to a large number of participants >>>> with special >>>> attention to participants from unrepresented >>>> categories >>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>> unrepresented participant >>>> segments and even to those from affluent, >>>> represented regions if >>>> there is an individual need ). >>>> >>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in >>>> really diverse >>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >>>> further value to >>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that >>>> such a >>>> fund may be >>>> built up from contributions that are >>>> unconditional (as opposed to >>>> a grant from a business trust with stated or >>>> implied conditions >>>> about the positions to be taken; >>>> 'unconditional' >>>> does not imply >>>> that funds may have to be disbursed without >>>> even >>>> the basic >>>> conditions that the recipient should attend the >>>> IGF and attend the >>>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" >>>> means something >>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel >>>> Grants whereby IGF >>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, >>>> Governments, >>>> International Organizations, well funded >>>> NGOs and >>>> UN with no >>>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken >>>> by participants*)* >>>> and may be awarded to panelists and >>>> participants >>>> unconditionally. >>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >>>> large enough to have >>>> significant impact in further enhancing quality >>>> and diversity of >>>> participation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian >>>> Muthusamy >>> >>>> >>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Ginger >>>> >>>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, >>>> will review the >>>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the >>>> Q6 comment, but >>>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving >>>> for the city in a >>>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time >>>> to work tomorrow >>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>> >>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather >>>> than as an >>>> independent proposal, which I could have >>>> sent it >>>> on my own but >>>> preferred not to. >>>> >>>> Shiva. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>>> >>>> >>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Shiva, >>>> >>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - >>>> including myself, >>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are >>>> not yet satisfied >>>> with the wording on the funding concept. >>>> You >>>> are welcome to >>>> continue the discussion and see if you can >>>> reach a consensus >>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time >>>> everyone is happy, the >>>> statement won't say much of anything. Could >>>> you review the >>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the >>>> complete >>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what >>>> you think? >>>> >>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>> >>>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to >>>> discuss. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Ginger >>>> >>>> You would like this submitted as my own >>>> comment, rather >>>> than as an IGC statement? Is this >>>> only on >>>> Q6 or does it >>>> also apply to Q3? >>>> >>>> There were further exchanges between >>>> Gurstein and me, and >>>> the misunderstanding are being >>>> clarified. >>>> Would you really >>>> feel that the entire statement has >>>> to be >>>> dropped as >>>> comment from IGC? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, >>>> Ginger Paque >>>> >>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a >>>> bit of controversy >>>> about this >>>> concept and wording, and we are very >>>> short on time, I >>>> wonder if we >>>> could continue this discussion after >>>> the questionnaire is >>>> submitted, perhaps for comments >>>> to be >>>> submitted by the >>>> August >>>> deadline? >>>> >>>> In the meantime, you could submit >>>> your >>>> own comment, >>>> which would >>>> give you more freedom to make your >>>> point. Is that >>>> acceptable to you? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>> >>>> A quick reply and a little >>>> more later. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, >>>> Michael Gurstein >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> -----Original >>>> Message----- >>>> *From:* Sivasubramanian >>>> Muthusamy >>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>] >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, >>>> 2009 6:18 PM >>>> *To:* >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>; Michael >>>> Gurstein >>>> *Subject:* Re: >>>> [governance] >>>> Question 6: >>>> Comments on Siva's >>>> proposed paras >>>> >>>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>>> 2:50 AM, Michael >>>> Gurstein >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "The Internet >>>> Governance Caucus calls >>>> upon the IGF >>>> Secretariat to >>>> fund the >>>> IGF programs and >>>> participation >>>> substantially and >>>> significantly to >>>> further enhance the >>>> quality of programs >>>> with greater >>>> diversity of >>>> participation" sounds >>>> better? YES... >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are two aspects >>>> to be considered >>>> in this >>>> regard: a) >>>> The absence or >>>> non-participation of >>>> some of the world's >>>> most renowned >>>> Civil Society opinion >>>> leaders is >>>> noticeable; >>>> Business Leaders >>>> who are >>>> otherwise >>>> committed to >>>> social and other >>>> governance issues off >>>> IGF are not >>>> seen at >>>> the IGF; >>>> Governments are not >>>> represented on a >>>> level high enough >>>> >>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT >>>> EXACTLY >>>> IS MEANT BY >>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY >>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>> (IN SOME CIRCLES >>>> THERE >>>> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>> INTERNAL >>>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT >>>> SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE >>>> EXPECTED TO >>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS >>>> MIGHT >>>> BE. >>>> >>>> AS WELL, ARE WE >>>> LOOKING >>>> FOR CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS >>>> IN LEADERSHIP >>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>> ARE WE >>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE >>>> WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>> ISSUES, OR >>>> ARE WE >>>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>>> OF RESPONSIBLE >>>> REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>> HAVE A >>>> >>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND >>>> COULD BE INCLUDED >>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>> UNDER >>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>> >>>> IF BIZ LEADERS >>>> THINK IT >>>> IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>> IMPORTANCE >>>> THEY'LL LIKELY >>>> COME, IF >>>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH >>>> WE OR THE >>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>> ABOUT >>>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>> >>>> I THINK THIS PARA >>>> SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>> >>>> >>>> I am sorry, I don't agree >>>> with your negative >>>> interpretation of >>>> such a positive >>>> suggestion. >>>> Are we to assert >>>> that the >>>> present >>>> participants constitute a >>>> complete, >>>> representative, and >>>> ultimate group >>>> ? NO, BUT >>>> I'M HAVING >>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI >>>> KLEIN OR >>>> VENDANA >>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO >>>> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>> >>>> I will have to browse a >>>> little to >>>> learn about Naomi >>>> Klein; >>>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name >>>> that sounds >>>> familiar, but I >>>> wasn't thinking of these names, >>>> nor was my point >>>> intended to >>>> bring in anyone whom I know or >>>> associated with. >>>> Looks like >>>> you are reading between the >>>> lines >>>> of what I write. >>>> >>>> HAVING THE >>>> HEAD OF >>>> SEWA OR K-NET >>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>> MORE USEFUL, >>>> "RENOWNED" OR >>>> NOT, AS THEY AT >>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>> WITH SOME DIRECT >>>> KNOWLEDGE >>>> ABOUT HOW IG >>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>> THEM AND >>>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY >>>> ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>> THE GROUND. >>>> >>>> Again an Indian reference - you >>>> have used the word >>>> "Sewa" in >>>> your comment. Perhaps you are >>>> reading me as someone >>>> pushing >>>> the Indian point of view? I am >>>> not. I am born in >>>> India, a >>>> participant from India, I have >>>> faith in and respect >>>> for my >>>> country but I believe that in an >>>> International >>>> context I am at >>>> least a little wider than a >>>> national. I have been >>>> inspired by >>>> teachers who taught me in my >>>> school days that >>>> "patriotism is a >>>> prejudice" which is profound >>>> thinking which in >>>> depths implies >>>> that one must be beyond being >>>> patriotic and be >>>> rather global. >>>> >>>> (Will come back this point and >>>> write more in >>>> response to what >>>> you have written a little later) >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>> >>>> MBG >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jul 13 17:09:03 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:09:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5BA13B.50707@gmail.com> References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> <4A5B9EE6.4080602@wzb.eu> <4A5BA13B.50707@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5BA26F.2030503@wzb.eu> In my view, the caucus, not the IGF secretariat, should call upon the UN Member States. Lets see what others say. je Ginger Paque wrote: > Sorry, my mistake, so we would change the first line to read: > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply > to **the UN Member States** for substantial funding for IGF programs and > participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster > greater diversity of participation. > > Is that correct? > Ginger > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Ginger, what is wrong with Wolfgang's suggestion: >> >> With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member >> States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in such >> a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But UN member >> states can do this. >> > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply > to the UN Member States for substantial funding for IGF programs and > participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster > greater diversity of participation. >> jeanette >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to continue >>> this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, which is the >>> following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>> apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF >>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of programs >>> to foster greater diversity of participation. >>> >>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF >>> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly >>> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also >>> true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include >>> more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and >>> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society >>> causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all >>> participant segments and geographic regions. We mention in for >>> example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, >>> rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of >>> the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting >>> peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an >>> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet >>> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities >>> and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in >>> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of >>> broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities >>> need to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability >>> of various categories of travel grants for participants may help >>> improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of >>> funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for >>> representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding >>> achieves a limited objective. >>> >>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs >>> to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and >>> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual >>> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total >>> visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, >>> which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding >>> for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would >>> amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the >>> quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be >>> significantly improved. >>> >>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that >>> the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants >>> from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and >>> international organizations and the United Nations. The fund could >>> extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, >>> program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number >>> of participants with special attention to participants from >>> unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, >>> represented regions if there is an individual need). >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people from >>>> least developed countries. I do think that the IGF secretariat >>>> should have a reliable funding that ensure independence from private >>>> sector donations. >>>> >>>> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class >>>> flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on this >>>> latter part, I suggested to omit such details. >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann >>>>> >>>>> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT >>>>> realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook >>>>> unconstrained by the present situation. Another million or two or >>>>> ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the >>>>> IGF body. >>>>> >>>>> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a >>>>> way to find funds to answer thiso call. >>>>> >>>>> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF >>>>> in eternal poverty, >>>>> >>>>> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it >>>>> not mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with >>>>> such a suggestion and in its present form, is there anything >>>>> seriously objectionable with what it says about enhancing the >>>>> quality of programs with greater diversity of participation? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another >>>>> California >>>>> as Michael G. suggests. >>>>> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support >>>>> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to >>>>> call >>>>> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a >>>>> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own >>>>> functioning. >>>>> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should >>>>> come from or how it could be generated. >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only >>>>> Jeanette who holds this view. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, gp >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious >>>>> effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I >>>>> cannot agree with. Please consider the following >>>>> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments >>>>> from others as well: >>>>> >>>>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and >>>>> then >>>>> edited by Ginger] >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>>>> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and >>>>> participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>> programs >>>>> with greater diversity of participation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses >>>>> listed below. I don't understand why we would want to >>>>> "call >>>>> upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in >>>>> light of the lack of such funds. >>>>> >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: >>>>> a) Present IGF participants representing various >>>>> stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals >>>>> with >>>>> diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF >>>>> participation needs to be further expanded to include >>>>> more Civil Society participants known for their >>>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF >>>>> arena on >>>>> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who >>>>> are >>>>> otherwise committed to social and other governance >>>>> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>>> governments >>>>> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present >>>>> attendees >>>>> of the IGF do not represent all participant >>>>> segments and >>>>> geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it >>>>> requires various efforts, but availability of various >>>>> categories of travel grants for participants may help >>>>> improve participation by those not attending the >>>>> IGF for >>>>> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds >>>>> available >>>>> for representation from Less Developed Countries, but >>>>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>> >>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and >>>>> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>>>> Governments, organizations and individual >>>>> participants) >>>>> would be several times that of the actual outflow from >>>>> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as >>>>> reflected >>>>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates >>>>> the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With >>>>> an increment in funding for travel support to panel >>>>> speaker and participants, which would amount to a >>>>> small >>>>> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of >>>>> panels and the diversity of participation could be >>>>> improved. >>>>> >>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus >>>>> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary >>>>> allocations supported by grants from business, >>>>> governments, well funded non-governmental and >>>>> international organizations and the United Nations. >>>>> The >>>>> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead participants >>>>> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial >>>>> fellowships to a greater number of participants with >>>>> special attention to participants from unrepresented >>>>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those >>>>> from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>>> individual need ). >>>>> >>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more >>>>> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >>>>> further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended >>>>> that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or >>>>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a >>>>> grant >>>>> from a business trust with stated or implied >>>>> conditions >>>>> about the positions to be taken). It is recommended >>>>> that >>>>> the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant >>>>> impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>>>> participation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>>> >>>>> Have revised the statement and the changes made >>>>> are >>>>> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with html / >>>>> mime settings. ( for the convenience of those >>>>> whose >>>>> mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the >>>>> text as a PDF file which would show the >>>>> highlighted >>>>> changes ) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon >>>>> the IGF >>>>> Secretariat to >>>>> fund the IGF programs and participation >>>>> substantially and >>>>> significantly to further enhance the quality of >>>>> programs with >>>>> greater diversity of participation. * *There >>>>> are >>>>> two aspects to be >>>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF >>>>> participants >>>>> representing various stakeholder groups are >>>>> highly qualified >>>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it >>>>> is also true that >>>>> IGF participation needs to be further >>>>> expanded to >>>>> invite and >>>>> include more Civil Society participants >>>>> known for >>>>> their commitment >>>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >>>>> various Civil Society >>>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise >>>>> committed to social >>>>> and other governance issues are not seen at the >>>>> IGF, and not all >>>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and >>>>> though not for >>>>> financial reasons, the present participants >>>>> from >>>>> Government are >>>>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ >>>>> this >>>>> sentence in >>>>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it >>>>> is not directly >>>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present >>>>> participants of the IGF >>>>> do not represent all participant segments and >>>>> geographic regions. >>>>> This needs to be improved and it requires >>>>> various >>>>> efforts, but >>>>> availability of various categories of Travel >>>>> Grants for different >>>>> classes of participants may help improve >>>>> participation by those >>>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF >>>>> already has made some >>>>> funds available for representation from Less >>>>> Developed Countries, >>>>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>> >>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible >>>>> and invisible >>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>>>> Governments, >>>>> organizations and individual participants) >>>>> would >>>>> be several times >>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF >>>>> Secretariat in organizing >>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of >>>>> accounts. If an economist >>>>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs >>>>> of the IGF, it >>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already >>>>> spent. >>>>> For want of a >>>>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel > >>>>> speaker and >>>>> participants, which would amount to a small >>>>> proportion of the true >>>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the >>>>> diversity of >>>>> participation are compromised. >>>>> >>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance >>>>> Caucus recommends >>>>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary >>>>> allocations >>>>> supported by unconditional grants from >>>>> business, >>>>> governments, well >>>>> funded non-governmental and international >>>>> organizations and the >>>>> United Nations. The fund may extend >>>>> uncompromising, comfortable >>>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead >>>>> participants (panel >>>>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely >>>>> invitees who are >>>>> required to be well-received for >>>>> participation), >>>>> full and partial >>>>> fellowships to a large number of participants >>>>> with special >>>>> attention to participants from unrepresented >>>>> categories >>>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>>> unrepresented participant >>>>> segments and even to those from affluent, >>>>> represented regions if >>>>> there is an individual need ). >>>>> >>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in >>>>> really diverse >>>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >>>>> further value to >>>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that >>>>> such a >>>>> fund may be >>>>> built up from contributions that are >>>>> unconditional (as opposed to >>>>> a grant from a business trust with stated or >>>>> implied conditions >>>>> about the positions to be taken; >>>>> 'unconditional' >>>>> does not imply >>>>> that funds may have to be disbursed without >>>>> even >>>>> the basic >>>>> conditions that the recipient should attend the >>>>> IGF and attend the >>>>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" >>>>> means something >>>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel >>>>> Grants whereby IGF >>>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, >>>>> Governments, >>>>> International Organizations, well funded >>>>> NGOs and >>>>> UN with no >>>>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken >>>>> by participants*)* >>>>> and may be awarded to panelists and >>>>> participants >>>>> unconditionally. >>>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >>>>> large enough to have >>>>> significant impact in further enhancing quality >>>>> and diversity of >>>>> participation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian >>>>> Muthusamy >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>> >>>>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, >>>>> will review the >>>>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the >>>>> Q6 comment, but >>>>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving >>>>> for the city in a >>>>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time >>>>> to work tomorrow >>>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>>> >>>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather >>>>> than as an >>>>> independent proposal, which I could have >>>>> sent it >>>>> on my own but >>>>> preferred not to. >>>>> >>>>> Shiva. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Shiva, >>>>> >>>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - >>>>> including myself, >>>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are >>>>> not yet satisfied >>>>> with the wording on the funding concept. >>>>> You >>>>> are welcome to >>>>> continue the discussion and see if you can >>>>> reach a consensus >>>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time >>>>> everyone is happy, the >>>>> statement won't say much of anything. Could >>>>> you review the >>>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the >>>>> complete >>>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what >>>>> you think? >>>>> >>>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to >>>>> discuss. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>> >>>>> You would like this submitted as my own >>>>> comment, rather >>>>> than as an IGC statement? Is this >>>>> only on >>>>> Q6 or does it >>>>> also apply to Q3? >>>>> >>>>> There were further exchanges between >>>>> Gurstein and me, and >>>>> the misunderstanding are being >>>>> clarified. >>>>> Would you really >>>>> feel that the entire statement has >>>>> to be >>>>> dropped as >>>>> comment from IGC? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, >>>>> Ginger Paque >>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a >>>>> bit of controversy >>>>> about this >>>>> concept and wording, and we are very >>>>> short on time, I >>>>> wonder if we >>>>> could continue this discussion after >>>>> the questionnaire is >>>>> submitted, perhaps for comments >>>>> to be >>>>> submitted by the >>>>> August >>>>> deadline? >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime, you could submit >>>>> your >>>>> own comment, >>>>> which would >>>>> give you more freedom to make your >>>>> point. Is that >>>>> acceptable to you? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>>> >>>>> A quick reply and a little >>>>> more later. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, >>>>> Michael Gurstein >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> -----Original >>>>> Message----- >>>>> *From:* Sivasubramanian >>>>> Muthusamy >>>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>] >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, >>>>> 2009 6:18 PM >>>>> *To:* >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>; Michael >>>>> Gurstein >>>>> *Subject:* Re: >>>>> [governance] >>>>> Question 6: >>>>> Comments on Siva's >>>>> proposed paras >>>>> >>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>>>> 2:50 AM, Michael >>>>> Gurstein >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "The Internet >>>>> Governance Caucus calls >>>>> upon the IGF >>>>> Secretariat to >>>>> fund the >>>>> IGF programs and >>>>> participation >>>>> substantially and >>>>> significantly to >>>>> further enhance the >>>>> quality of programs >>>>> with greater >>>>> diversity of >>>>> participation" sounds >>>>> better? YES... >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are two aspects >>>>> to be considered >>>>> in this >>>>> regard: a) >>>>> The absence or >>>>> non-participation of >>>>> some of the world's >>>>> most renowned >>>>> Civil Society opinion >>>>> leaders is >>>>> noticeable; >>>>> Business Leaders >>>>> who are >>>>> otherwise >>>>> committed to >>>>> social and other >>>>> governance issues off >>>>> IGF are not >>>>> seen at >>>>> the IGF; >>>>> Governments are not >>>>> represented on a >>>>> level high enough >>>>> >>>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT >>>>> EXACTLY >>>>> IS MEANT BY >>>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY >>>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>>> (IN SOME CIRCLES >>>>> THERE >>>>> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >>>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>>> INTERNAL >>>>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT >>>>> SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>>>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE >>>>> EXPECTED TO >>>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS >>>>> MIGHT >>>>> BE. >>>>> >>>>> AS WELL, ARE WE >>>>> LOOKING >>>>> FOR CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS >>>>> IN LEADERSHIP >>>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>>> ARE WE >>>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE >>>>> WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>>> ISSUES, OR >>>>> ARE WE >>>>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>>>> OF RESPONSIBLE >>>>> REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>>> HAVE A >>>>> >>>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND >>>>> COULD BE INCLUDED >>>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>>> UNDER >>>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>>> >>>>> IF BIZ LEADERS >>>>> THINK IT >>>>> IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>>> IMPORTANCE >>>>> THEY'LL LIKELY >>>>> COME, IF >>>>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH >>>>> WE OR THE >>>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>>> ABOUT >>>>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>>> >>>>> I THINK THIS PARA >>>>> SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am sorry, I don't agree >>>>> with your negative >>>>> interpretation of >>>>> such a positive >>>>> suggestion. >>>>> Are we to assert >>>>> that the >>>>> present >>>>> participants constitute a >>>>> complete, >>>>> representative, and >>>>> ultimate group >>>>> ? NO, BUT >>>>> I'M HAVING >>>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI >>>>> KLEIN OR >>>>> VENDANA >>>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO >>>>> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>>> >>>>> I will have to browse a >>>>> little to >>>>> learn about Naomi >>>>> Klein; >>>>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name >>>>> that sounds >>>>> familiar, but I >>>>> wasn't thinking of these names, >>>>> nor was my point >>>>> intended to >>>>> bring in anyone whom I know or >>>>> associated with. >>>>> Looks like >>>>> you are reading between the >>>>> lines >>>>> of what I write. >>>>> >>>>> HAVING THE >>>>> HEAD OF >>>>> SEWA OR K-NET >>>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>>> MORE USEFUL, >>>>> "RENOWNED" OR >>>>> NOT, AS THEY AT >>>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>>> WITH SOME DIRECT >>>>> KNOWLEDGE >>>>> ABOUT HOW IG >>>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>>> THEM AND >>>>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY >>>>> ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>>> THE GROUND. >>>>> >>>>> Again an Indian reference - you >>>>> have used the word >>>>> "Sewa" in >>>>> your comment. Perhaps you are >>>>> reading me as someone >>>>> pushing >>>>> the Indian point of view? I am >>>>> not. I am born in >>>>> India, a >>>>> participant from India, I have >>>>> faith in and respect >>>>> for my >>>>> country but I believe that in an >>>>> International >>>>> context I am at >>>>> least a little wider than a >>>>> national. I have been >>>>> inspired by >>>>> teachers who taught me in my >>>>> school days that >>>>> "patriotism is a >>>>> prejudice" which is profound >>>>> thinking which in >>>>> depths implies >>>>> that one must be beyond being >>>>> patriotic and be >>>>> rather global. >>>>> >>>>> (Will come back this point and >>>>> write more in >>>>> response to what >>>>> you have written a little later) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>>> >>>>> MBG >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 From katitza at datos-personales.org Mon Jul 13 17:11:48 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:11:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5BA26F.2030503@wzb.eu> References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> <4A5B9EE6.4080602@wzb.eu> <4A5BA13B.50707@gmail.com> <4A5BA26F.2030503@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I agree with Jeanette, On Jul 13, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > In my view, the caucus, not the IGF secretariat, should call upon > the UN Member States. Lets see what others say. > je > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Sorry, my mistake, so we would change the first line to read: >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >> apply to **the UN Member States** for substantial funding for IGF >> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >> Is that correct? >> Ginger >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi Ginger, what is wrong with Wolfgang's suggestion: >>> >>> With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member >>> States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in >>> such a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But >>> UN member states can do this. >>> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >> apply to the UN Member States for substantial funding for IGF >> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>> jeanette >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to >>>> continue this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, >>>> which is the following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>> apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF >>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>>> >>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present >>>> IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are >>>> highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it >>>> is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded >>>> to include more Civil Society participants known for their >>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various >>>> Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do >>>> not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We >>>> mention in for example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with >>>> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the >>>> poorest of >>>> the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting >>>> peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an >>>> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of >>>> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners >>>> and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource >>>> in support of broad-based economic and social development. >>>> Funding possibilities need to be improved and it requires various >>>> efforts, but availability of various categories of travel grants >>>> for participants may help improve attendance by those not yet >>>> seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some >>>> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >>>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>> >>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >>>> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an >>>> economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the >>>> IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent >>>> each year. With an increment in funding for travel support to >>>> panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small >>>> proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of >>>> panels and the diversity of participation could be significantly >>>> improved. >>>> >>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >>>> that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by >>>> grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental >>>> and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund >>>> could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel >>>> speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a >>>> greater number of participants with special attention to >>>> participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented >>>> geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and >>>> even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>> individual need). >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people >>>>> from least developed countries. I do think that the IGF >>>>> secretariat should have a reliable funding that ensure >>>>> independence from private sector donations. >>>>> >>>>> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class >>>>> flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on >>>>> this latter part, I suggested to omit such details. >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann >>>>>> >>>>>> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the >>>>>> PRESENT realities and the statement stems from a positive >>>>>> outlook unconstrained by the present situation. Another million >>>>>> or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the >>>>>> reach of the IGF body. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will >>>>>> find a way to find funds to answer thiso call. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the >>>>>> IGF in eternal poverty, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would >>>>>> like it not mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete >>>>>> only with such a suggestion and in its present form, is there >>>>>> anything seriously objectionable with what it says about >>>>>> enhancing the quality of programs with greater diversity of >>>>>> participation? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another >>>>>> California >>>>>> as Michael G. suggests. >>>>>> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to >>>>>> support >>>>>> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense >>>>>> to call >>>>>> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a >>>>>> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own >>>>>> functioning. >>>>>> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money >>>>>> should >>>>>> come from or how it could be generated. >>>>>> jeanette >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only >>>>>> Jeanette who holds this view. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, gp >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious >>>>>> effort at compromise. However, there are still >>>>>> areas I >>>>>> cannot agree with. Please consider the following >>>>>> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for >>>>>> comments >>>>>> from others as well: >>>>>> >>>>>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, >>>>>> and then >>>>>> edited by Ginger] >>>>>> >>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>>>>> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and >>>>>> participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>>> programs >>>>>> with greater diversity of participation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses >>>>>> listed below. I don't understand why we would want >>>>>> to "call >>>>>> upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>>> > substantially fund IGF programs and >>>>>> participation" in >>>>>> light of the lack of such funds. >>>>>> >>>>>> jeanette >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this >>>>>> regard: >>>>>> a) Present IGF participants representing various >>>>>> stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>>>>> individuals with >>>>>> diverse accomplishments but it is also true that >>>>>> IGF >>>>>> participation needs to be further expanded to >>>>>> include >>>>>> more Civil Society participants known for their >>>>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF >>>>>> arena on >>>>>> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders >>>>>> who are >>>>>> otherwise committed to social and other governance >>>>>> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>>>> governments >>>>>> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present >>>>>> attendees >>>>>> of the IGF do not represent all participant >>>>>> segments and >>>>>> geographic regions. This needs to be improved >>>>>> and it >>>>>> requires various efforts, but availability of >>>>>> various >>>>>> categories of travel grants for participants may >>>>>> help >>>>>> improve participation by those not attending the >>>>>> IGF for >>>>>> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds >>>>>> available >>>>>> for representation from Less Developed >>>>>> Countries, but >>>>>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>>> >>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible >>>>>> and >>>>>> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, >>>>>> participating >>>>>> Governments, organizations and individual >>>>>> participants) >>>>>> would be several times that of the actual >>>>>> outflow from >>>>>> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as >>>>>> reflected >>>>>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>>>> estimates >>>>>> the total visible and invisible costs of the >>>>>> IGF, it >>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already >>>>>> spent. With >>>>>> an increment in funding for travel support to >>>>>> panel >>>>>> speaker and participants, which would amount to >>>>>> a small >>>>>> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the >>>>>> quality of >>>>>> panels and the diversity of participation could >>>>>> be improved. >>>>>> >>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance >>>>>> Caucus >>>>>> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary >>>>>> allocations supported by grants from business, >>>>>> governments, well funded non-governmental and >>>>>> international organizations and the United >>>>>> Nations. The >>>>>> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead >>>>>> participants >>>>>> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and >>>>>> partial >>>>>> fellowships to a greater number of participants >>>>>> with >>>>>> special attention to participants from >>>>>> unrepresented >>>>>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/ >>>>>> or >>>>>> unrepresented participant segments and even to >>>>>> those >>>>>> from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>>>> individual need ). >>>>>> >>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more >>>>>> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who >>>>>> would add >>>>>> further value to the IGF. It is especially >>>>>> recommended >>>>>> that such a fund carry no link as to the >>>>>> positions or >>>>>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to >>>>>> a grant >>>>>> from a business trust with stated or implied >>>>>> conditions >>>>>> about the positions to be taken). It is >>>>>> recommended that >>>>>> the IGF create a fund large enough to have >>>>>> significant >>>>>> impact in further enhancing quality and >>>>>> diversity of >>>>>> participation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Have revised the statement and the changes >>>>>> made are >>>>>> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with >>>>>> html / >>>>>> mime settings. ( for the convenience of >>>>>> those whose >>>>>> mail settings are plain text, I am attaching >>>>>> the >>>>>> text as a PDF file which would show the >>>>>> highlighted >>>>>> changes ) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you >>>>>> >>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>> >>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon >>>>>> the IGF >>>>>> Secretariat to >>>>>> fund the IGF programs and participation >>>>>> substantially and >>>>>> significantly to further enhance the >>>>>> quality of >>>>>> programs with >>>>>> greater diversity of participation. * >>>>>> *There are >>>>>> two aspects to be >>>>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ >>>>>> present IGF >>>>>> participants >>>>>> representing various stakeholder groups are >>>>>> highly qualified >>>>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments >>>>>> but it >>>>>> is also true that >>>>>> IGF participation needs to be further >>>>>> expanded to >>>>>> invite and >>>>>> include more Civil Society participants >>>>>> known for >>>>>> their commitment >>>>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena >>>>>> on >>>>>> various Civil Society >>>>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise >>>>>> committed to social >>>>>> and other governance issues are not seen >>>>>> at the >>>>>> IGF, and not all >>>>>> governments are represented at the IGF >>>>>> ( and >>>>>> though not for >>>>>> financial reasons, the present >>>>>> participants from >>>>>> Government are >>>>>> not represented on a high enough level ) >>>>>> - [ this >>>>>> sentence in >>>>>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary >>>>>> as it >>>>>> is not directly >>>>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present >>>>>> participants of the IGF >>>>>> do not represent all participant segments >>>>>> and >>>>>> geographic regions. >>>>>> This needs to be improved and it requires >>>>>> various >>>>>> efforts, but >>>>>> availability of various categories of >>>>>> Travel >>>>>> Grants for different >>>>>> classes of participants may help improve >>>>>> participation by those >>>>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. >>>>>> IGF >>>>>> already has made some >>>>>> funds available for representation from >>>>>> Less >>>>>> Developed Countries, >>>>>> but such funding achieves a limited >>>>>> objective. >>>>>> >>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all >>>>>> visible >>>>>> and invisible >>>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>>>>> Governments, >>>>>> organizations and individual >>>>>> participants) would >>>>>> be several times >>>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF >>>>>> Secretariat in organizing >>>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of >>>>>> accounts. If an economist >>>>>> estimates the total visible and invisible >>>>>> costs >>>>>> of the IGF, it >>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is >>>>>> already spent. >>>>>> For want of a >>>>>> marginal allocation for travel support to >>>>>> panel >>>>>> speaker and >>>>>> participants, which would amount to a small >>>>>> proportion of the true >>>>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels >>>>>> and the >>>>>> diversity of >>>>>> participation are compromised. >>>>>> >>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet >>>>>> Governance >>>>>> Caucus recommends >>>>>> that the IGF should consider liberal >>>>>> budgetary >>>>>> allocations >>>>>> supported by unconditional grants from >>>>>> business, >>>>>> governments, well >>>>>> funded non-governmental and international >>>>>> organizations and the >>>>>> United Nations. The fund may extend >>>>>> uncompromising, comfortable >>>>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead >>>>>> participants (panel >>>>>> speakers, program organizers, who are >>>>>> largely >>>>>> invitees who are >>>>>> required to be well-received for >>>>>> participation), >>>>>> full and partial >>>>>> fellowships to a large number of >>>>>> participants >>>>>> with special >>>>>> attention to participants from >>>>>> unrepresented >>>>>> categories >>>>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>>>> unrepresented participant >>>>>> segments and even to those from affluent, >>>>>> represented regions if >>>>>> there is an individual need ). >>>>>> >>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring >>>>>> in >>>>>> really diverse >>>>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who >>>>>> would add >>>>>> further value to >>>>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended >>>>>> that such a >>>>>> fund may be >>>>>> built up from contributions that are >>>>>> unconditional (as opposed to >>>>>> a grant from a business trust with stated >>>>>> or >>>>>> implied conditions >>>>>> about the positions to be taken; >>>>>> 'unconditional' >>>>>> does not imply >>>>>> that funds may have to be disbursed >>>>>> without even >>>>>> the basic >>>>>> conditions that the recipient should >>>>>> attend the >>>>>> IGF and attend the >>>>>> sessions etc. In this context >>>>>> "unconditional" >>>>>> means something >>>>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel >>>>>> Grants whereby IGF >>>>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, >>>>>> Governments, >>>>>> International Organizations, well funded >>>>>> NGOs and >>>>>> UN with no >>>>>> implied conditions on the positions to be >>>>>> taken >>>>>> by participants*)* >>>>>> and may be awarded to panelists and >>>>>> participants >>>>>> unconditionally. >>>>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a >>>>>> fund >>>>>> large enough to have >>>>>> significant impact in further enhancing >>>>>> quality >>>>>> and diversity of >>>>>> participation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>>>> >>>>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, >>>>>> Sivasubramanian >>>>>> Muthusamy >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>>> >>>>>> Will have just a little time to spend on >>>>>> this, >>>>>> will review the >>>>>> complete questionnaire comments, and >>>>>> reword the >>>>>> Q6 comment, but >>>>>> don't really have a lot of time today. >>>>>> Leaving >>>>>> for the city in a >>>>>> few hours for a short trip, will find >>>>>> some time >>>>>> to work tomorrow >>>>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, >>>>>> rather >>>>>> than as an >>>>>> independent proposal, which I could have >>>>>> sent it >>>>>> on my own but >>>>>> preferred not to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Shiva. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger >>>>>> Paque >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Shiva, >>>>>> >>>>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of >>>>>> us - >>>>>> including myself, >>>>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and >>>>>> others, are >>>>>> not yet satisfied >>>>>> with the wording on the funding >>>>>> concept. You >>>>>> are welcome to >>>>>> continue the discussion and see if >>>>>> you can >>>>>> reach a consensus >>>>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time >>>>>> everyone is happy, the >>>>>> statement won't say much of anything. >>>>>> Could >>>>>> you review the >>>>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer >>>>>> to the >>>>>> complete >>>>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what >>>>>> you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness >>>>>> to discuss. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Ginger >>>>>> >>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>>> >>>>>> You would like this submitted as >>>>>> my own >>>>>> comment, rather >>>>>> than as an IGC statement? Is this >>>>>> only on >>>>>> Q6 or does it >>>>>> also apply to Q3? >>>>>> >>>>>> There were further exchanges >>>>>> between >>>>>> Gurstein and me, and >>>>>> the misunderstanding are being >>>>>> clarified. >>>>>> Would you really >>>>>> feel that the entire statement >>>>>> has to be >>>>>> dropped as >>>>>> comment from IGC? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, >>>>>> Ginger Paque >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Shiva, As there seems to be >>>>>> quite a >>>>>> bit of controversy >>>>>> about this >>>>>> concept and wording, and we >>>>>> are very >>>>>> short on time, I >>>>>> wonder if we >>>>>> could continue this discussion >>>>>> after >>>>>> the questionnaire is >>>>>> submitted, perhaps for >>>>>> comments to be >>>>>> submitted by the >>>>>> August >>>>>> deadline? >>>>>> >>>>>> In the meantime, you could >>>>>> submit your >>>>>> own comment, >>>>>> which would >>>>>> give you more freedom to make >>>>>> your >>>>>> point. Is that >>>>>> acceptable to you? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Ginger >>>>>> >>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>>>> >>>>>> A quick reply and a little >>>>>> more later. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>>>>> 6:12 AM, >>>>>> Michael Gurstein >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original >>>>>> Message----- >>>>>> *From:* >>>>>> Sivasubramanian >>>>>> Muthusamy >>>>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>] >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, >>>>>> July 12, >>>>>> 2009 6:18 PM >>>>>> *To:* >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>; >>>>>> Michael Gurstein >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: >>>>>> [governance] >>>>>> Question 6: >>>>>> Comments on Siva's >>>>>> proposed paras >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Michael >>>>>> Gurstein, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, >>>>>> 2009 at >>>>>> 2:50 AM, Michael >>>>>> Gurstein >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "The Internet >>>>>> Governance Caucus calls >>>>>> upon the IGF >>>>>> Secretariat to >>>>>> fund the >>>>>> IGF programs and >>>>>> participation >>>>>> substantially and >>>>>> significantly to >>>>>> further enhance the >>>>>> quality of >>>>>> programs >>>>>> with greater >>>>>> diversity of >>>>>> participation" >>>>>> sounds >>>>>> better? YES... >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are two >>>>>> aspects >>>>>> to be considered >>>>>> in this >>>>>> regard: a) >>>>>> The absence or >>>>>> non- >>>>>> participation of >>>>>> some of the world's >>>>>> most renowned >>>>>> Civil Society >>>>>> opinion >>>>>> leaders is >>>>>> noticeable; >>>>>> Business Leaders >>>>>> who are >>>>>> otherwise >>>>>> committed to >>>>>> social and other >>>>>> governance issues off >>>>>> IGF are not >>>>>> seen at >>>>>> the IGF; >>>>>> Governments are >>>>>> not >>>>>> represented on a >>>>>> level high enough >>>>>> >>>>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT >>>>>> EXACTLY >>>>>> IS MEANT BY >>>>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>>>> (IN SOME >>>>>> CIRCLES THERE >>>>>> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >>>>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>>>> INTERNAL >>>>>> CONTRADITIONS >>>>>> IN THAT >>>>>> SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>>>> NEITHER WE NOR >>>>>> THE >>>>>> SECRETARIAT >>>>>> SHOULD BE >>>>>> EXPECTED TO >>>>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>>>> "RENOWNED" >>>>>> FOLKS MIGHT >>>>>> BE. >>>>>> >>>>>> AS WELL, ARE WE >>>>>> LOOKING >>>>>> FOR CIVIL >>>>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS >>>>>> IN LEADERSHIP >>>>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>>>> ARE WE >>>>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>> SPOKESPEOPLE >>>>>> WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>>>> ISSUES, OR >>>>>> ARE WE >>>>>> LOOKING FOR >>>>>> LEADERS >>>>>> OF RESPONSIBLE >>>>>> REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>>>> HAVE A >>>>>> POSITION >>>>>> //OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>>>> PROBABLY >>>>>> DISCREET AND >>>>>> COULD BE INCLUDED >>>>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>>>> UNDER >>>>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>>>> >>>>>> IF BIZ LEADERS >>>>>> THINK IT >>>>>> IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>>>> IMPORTANCE >>>>>> THEY'LL LIKELY >>>>>> COME, IF >>>>>> NOT, NOT AND >>>>>> NOT MUCH >>>>>> WE OR THE >>>>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>>>> ABOUT >>>>>> THAT AND >>>>>> SIMILARLY >>>>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>>>> >>>>>> I THINK THIS PARA >>>>>> SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am sorry, I don't >>>>>> agree >>>>>> with your negative >>>>>> interpretation of >>>>>> such a positive >>>>>> suggestion. >>>>>> Are we to assert >>>>>> that the >>>>>> present >>>>>> participants >>>>>> constitute a >>>>>> complete, >>>>>> representative, and >>>>>> ultimate >>>>>> group ? NO, BUT >>>>>> I'M HAVING >>>>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI >>>>>> KLEIN OR >>>>>> VENDANA >>>>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO >>>>>> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>>>> >>>>>> I will have to browse a >>>>>> little to >>>>>> learn about Naomi >>>>>> Klein; >>>>>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian >>>>>> name >>>>>> that sounds >>>>>> familiar, but I >>>>>> wasn't thinking of these >>>>>> names, >>>>>> nor was my point >>>>>> intended to >>>>>> bring in anyone whom I >>>>>> know or >>>>>> associated with. >>>>>> Looks like >>>>>> you are reading between >>>>>> the lines >>>>>> of what I write. >>>>>> >>>>>> HAVING THE >>>>>> HEAD OF >>>>>> SEWA OR K-NET >>>>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>>>> MORE USEFUL, >>>>>> "RENOWNED" OR >>>>>> NOT, AS THEY AT >>>>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>>>> WITH SOME DIRECT >>>>>> KNOWLEDGE >>>>>> ABOUT HOW IG >>>>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>>>> THEM AND >>>>>> THE KINDS OF THINGS >>>>>> THEY >>>>>> ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>>>> THE GROUND. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again an Indian reference >>>>>> - you >>>>>> have used the word >>>>>> "Sewa" in >>>>>> your comment. Perhaps you >>>>>> are >>>>>> reading me as someone >>>>>> pushing >>>>>> the Indian point of view? >>>>>> I am >>>>>> not. I am born in >>>>>> India, a >>>>>> participant from India, I >>>>>> have >>>>>> faith in and respect >>>>>> for my >>>>>> country but I believe that >>>>>> in an >>>>>> International >>>>>> context I am at >>>>>> least a little wider than a >>>>>> national. I have been >>>>>> inspired by >>>>>> teachers who taught me in my >>>>>> school days that >>>>>> "patriotism is a >>>>>> prejudice" which is profound >>>>>> thinking which in >>>>>> depths implies >>>>>> that one must be beyond >>>>>> being >>>>>> patriotic and be >>>>>> rather global. >>>>>> >>>>>> (Will come back this point >>>>>> and >>>>>> write more in >>>>>> response to what >>>>>> you have written a little >>>>>> later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>>>> >>>>>> MBG >>>>>> Sivasubramanian >>>>>> Muthusamy >>>>>> M >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this >>>>>> message as a >>>>>> subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance >>>>>> @lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>> < >>>>>> mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> To be removed >>>>>> from the >>>>>> list, send any >>>>>> message to: >>>>>> governance >>>>>> -unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>>> >>>>>> < >>>>>> mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 17:19:37 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:49:37 -0430 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> <4A5B9EE6.4080602@wzb.eu> <4A5BA13B.50707@gmail.com> <4A5BA26F.2030503@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A5BA4E9.1010306@gmail.com> How would the caucus do this? Just by stating it in the questionnaire? That is not likely to go anywhere is it? How would be go about carrying this forward? It would be great, but is it possible? I see it as more likely to be a real proposal if the Secretariat applies for/requests the funding. Can someone please help me on this? Thanks. gp Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > I agree with Jeanette, > > On Jul 13, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> In my view, the caucus, not the IGF secretariat, should call upon the >> UN Member States. Lets see what others say. >> je >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> Sorry, my mistake, so we would change the first line to read: >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>> apply to **the UN Member States** for substantial funding for IGF >>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>> Is that correct? >>> Ginger >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> Hi Ginger, what is wrong with Wolfgang's suggestion: >>>> >>>> With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member >>>> States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in >>>> such a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But UN >>>> member states can do this. >>>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>> apply to the UN Member States for substantial funding for IGF >>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to >>>>> continue this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, >>>>> which is the following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>> apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF >>>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>>>> >>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present >>>>> IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are >>>>> highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it >>>>> is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded >>>>> to include more Civil Society participants known for their >>>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various >>>>> Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do >>>>> not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We >>>>> mention in for example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with >>>>> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the >>>>> poorest of >>>>> the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting >>>>> peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an >>>>> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of >>>>> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>>>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners >>>>> and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource >>>>> in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding >>>>> possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts, >>>>> but availability of various categories of travel grants for >>>>> participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at >>>>> the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds >>>>> available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but >>>>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>> >>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >>>>> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent each year. >>>>> With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker >>>>> and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the >>>>> true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the >>>>> diversity of participation could be significantly improved. >>>>> >>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >>>>> that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by >>>>> grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental >>>>> and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund >>>>> could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel >>>>> speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a >>>>> greater number of participants with special attention to >>>>> participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented >>>>> geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and >>>>> even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>>> individual need). >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people >>>>>> from least developed countries. I do think that the IGF >>>>>> secretariat should have a reliable funding that ensure >>>>>> independence from private sector donations. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class >>>>>> flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on >>>>>> this latter part, I suggested to omit such details. >>>>>> jeanette >>>>>> >>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT >>>>>>> realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook >>>>>>> unconstrained by the present situation. Another million or two >>>>>>> or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of >>>>>>> the IGF body. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find >>>>>>> a way to find funds to answer thiso call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the >>>>>>> IGF in eternal poverty, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like >>>>>>> it not mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only >>>>>>> with such a suggestion and in its present form, is there >>>>>>> anything seriously objectionable with what it says about >>>>>>> enhancing the quality of programs with greater diversity of >>>>>>> participation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another >>>>>>> California >>>>>>> as Michael G. suggests. >>>>>>> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support >>>>>>> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense >>>>>>> to call >>>>>>> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a >>>>>>> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own >>>>>>> functioning. >>>>>>> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should >>>>>>> come from or how it could be generated. >>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only >>>>>>> Jeanette who holds this view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, gp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious >>>>>>> effort at compromise. However, there are still >>>>>>> areas I >>>>>>> cannot agree with. Please consider the following >>>>>>> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for >>>>>>> comments >>>>>>> from others as well: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, >>>>>>> and then >>>>>>> edited by Ginger] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>>>>>> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and >>>>>>> participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>>>> programs >>>>>>> with greater diversity of participation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses >>>>>>> listed below. I don't understand why we would want to >>>>>>> "call >>>>>>> upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>>>> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in >>>>>>> light of the lack of such funds. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this >>>>>>> regard: >>>>>>> a) Present IGF participants representing various >>>>>>> stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>>>>>> individuals with >>>>>>> diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF >>>>>>> participation needs to be further expanded to >>>>>>> include >>>>>>> more Civil Society participants known for their >>>>>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF >>>>>>> arena on >>>>>>> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders >>>>>>> who are >>>>>>> otherwise committed to social and other governance >>>>>>> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>>>>> governments >>>>>>> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present >>>>>>> attendees >>>>>>> of the IGF do not represent all participant >>>>>>> segments and >>>>>>> geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it >>>>>>> requires various efforts, but availability of >>>>>>> various >>>>>>> categories of travel grants for participants may >>>>>>> help >>>>>>> improve participation by those not attending the >>>>>>> IGF for >>>>>>> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds >>>>>>> available >>>>>>> for representation from Less Developed Countries, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and >>>>>>> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, >>>>>>> participating >>>>>>> Governments, organizations and individual >>>>>>> participants) >>>>>>> would be several times that of the actual outflow >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as >>>>>>> reflected >>>>>>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>>>>> estimates >>>>>>> the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. >>>>>>> With >>>>>>> an increment in funding for travel support to panel >>>>>>> speaker and participants, which would amount to a >>>>>>> small >>>>>>> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the >>>>>>> quality of >>>>>>> panels and the diversity of participation could >>>>>>> be improved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus >>>>>>> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary >>>>>>> allocations supported by grants from business, >>>>>>> governments, well funded non-governmental and >>>>>>> international organizations and the United >>>>>>> Nations. The >>>>>>> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead >>>>>>> participants >>>>>>> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and >>>>>>> partial >>>>>>> fellowships to a greater number of participants with >>>>>>> special attention to participants from unrepresented >>>>>>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>>>>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those >>>>>>> from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>>>>> individual need ). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more >>>>>>> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who >>>>>>> would add >>>>>>> further value to the IGF. It is especially >>>>>>> recommended >>>>>>> that such a fund carry no link as to the >>>>>>> positions or >>>>>>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to >>>>>>> a grant >>>>>>> from a business trust with stated or implied >>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>> about the positions to be taken). It is >>>>>>> recommended that >>>>>>> the IGF create a fund large enough to have >>>>>>> significant >>>>>>> impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>>>>>> participation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have revised the statement and the changes >>>>>>> made are >>>>>>> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with >>>>>>> html / >>>>>>> mime settings. ( for the convenience of those >>>>>>> whose >>>>>>> mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the >>>>>>> text as a PDF file which would show the >>>>>>> highlighted >>>>>>> changes ) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon >>>>>>> the IGF >>>>>>> Secretariat to >>>>>>> fund the IGF programs and participation >>>>>>> substantially and >>>>>>> significantly to further enhance the >>>>>>> quality of >>>>>>> programs with >>>>>>> greater diversity of participation. * >>>>>>> *There are >>>>>>> two aspects to be >>>>>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ >>>>>>> present IGF >>>>>>> participants >>>>>>> representing various stakeholder groups are >>>>>>> highly qualified >>>>>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments >>>>>>> but it >>>>>>> is also true that >>>>>>> IGF participation needs to be further >>>>>>> expanded to >>>>>>> invite and >>>>>>> include more Civil Society participants >>>>>>> known for >>>>>>> their commitment >>>>>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >>>>>>> various Civil Society >>>>>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise >>>>>>> committed to social >>>>>>> and other governance issues are not seen >>>>>>> at the >>>>>>> IGF, and not all >>>>>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and >>>>>>> though not for >>>>>>> financial reasons, the present >>>>>>> participants from >>>>>>> Government are >>>>>>> not represented on a high enough level ) - >>>>>>> [ this >>>>>>> sentence in >>>>>>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary >>>>>>> as it >>>>>>> is not directly >>>>>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present >>>>>>> participants of the IGF >>>>>>> do not represent all participant segments and >>>>>>> geographic regions. >>>>>>> This needs to be improved and it requires >>>>>>> various >>>>>>> efforts, but >>>>>>> availability of various categories of Travel >>>>>>> Grants for different >>>>>>> classes of participants may help improve >>>>>>> participation by those >>>>>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF >>>>>>> already has made some >>>>>>> funds available for representation from Less >>>>>>> Developed Countries, >>>>>>> but such funding achieves a limited >>>>>>> objective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all >>>>>>> visible >>>>>>> and invisible >>>>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>>>>>> Governments, >>>>>>> organizations and individual participants) >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> be several times >>>>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF >>>>>>> Secretariat in organizing >>>>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of >>>>>>> accounts. If an economist >>>>>>> estimates the total visible and invisible >>>>>>> costs >>>>>>> of the IGF, it >>>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already >>>>>>> spent. >>>>>>> For want of a >>>>>>> marginal allocation for travel support to >>>>>>> panel >>>>>>> speaker and >>>>>>> participants, which would amount to a small >>>>>>> proportion of the true >>>>>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> diversity of >>>>>>> participation are compromised. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance >>>>>>> Caucus recommends >>>>>>> that the IGF should consider liberal >>>>>>> budgetary >>>>>>> allocations >>>>>>> supported by unconditional grants from >>>>>>> business, >>>>>>> governments, well >>>>>>> funded non-governmental and international >>>>>>> organizations and the >>>>>>> United Nations. The fund may extend >>>>>>> uncompromising, comfortable >>>>>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead >>>>>>> participants (panel >>>>>>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely >>>>>>> invitees who are >>>>>>> required to be well-received for >>>>>>> participation), >>>>>>> full and partial >>>>>>> fellowships to a large number of participants >>>>>>> with special >>>>>>> attention to participants from unrepresented >>>>>>> categories >>>>>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>>>>> unrepresented participant >>>>>>> segments and even to those from affluent, >>>>>>> represented regions if >>>>>>> there is an individual need ). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in >>>>>>> really diverse >>>>>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would >>>>>>> add >>>>>>> further value to >>>>>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that >>>>>>> such a >>>>>>> fund may be >>>>>>> built up from contributions that are >>>>>>> unconditional (as opposed to >>>>>>> a grant from a business trust with stated or >>>>>>> implied conditions >>>>>>> about the positions to be taken; >>>>>>> 'unconditional' >>>>>>> does not imply >>>>>>> that funds may have to be disbursed >>>>>>> without even >>>>>>> the basic >>>>>>> conditions that the recipient should >>>>>>> attend the >>>>>>> IGF and attend the >>>>>>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" >>>>>>> means something >>>>>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel >>>>>>> Grants whereby IGF >>>>>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, >>>>>>> Governments, >>>>>>> International Organizations, well funded >>>>>>> NGOs and >>>>>>> UN with no >>>>>>> implied conditions on the positions to be >>>>>>> taken >>>>>>> by participants*)* >>>>>>> and may be awarded to panelists and >>>>>>> participants >>>>>>> unconditionally. >>>>>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >>>>>>> large enough to have >>>>>>> significant impact in further enhancing >>>>>>> quality >>>>>>> and diversity of >>>>>>> participation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>>>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian >>>>>>> Muthusamy >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Will have just a little time to spend on >>>>>>> this, >>>>>>> will review the >>>>>>> complete questionnaire comments, and >>>>>>> reword the >>>>>>> Q6 comment, but >>>>>>> don't really have a lot of time today. >>>>>>> Leaving >>>>>>> for the city in a >>>>>>> few hours for a short trip, will find some >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> to work tomorrow >>>>>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather >>>>>>> than as an >>>>>>> independent proposal, which I could have >>>>>>> sent it >>>>>>> on my own but >>>>>>> preferred not to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shiva. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Shiva, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - >>>>>>> including myself, >>>>>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and >>>>>>> others, are >>>>>>> not yet satisfied >>>>>>> with the wording on the funding >>>>>>> concept. You >>>>>>> are welcome to >>>>>>> continue the discussion and see if you >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> reach a consensus >>>>>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time >>>>>>> everyone is happy, the >>>>>>> statement won't say much of anything. >>>>>>> Could >>>>>>> you review the >>>>>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer >>>>>>> to the >>>>>>> complete >>>>>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what >>>>>>> you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness >>>>>>> to discuss. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Ginger >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You would like this submitted as >>>>>>> my own >>>>>>> comment, rather >>>>>>> than as an IGC statement? Is this >>>>>>> only on >>>>>>> Q6 or does it >>>>>>> also apply to Q3? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There were further exchanges between >>>>>>> Gurstein and me, and >>>>>>> the misunderstanding are being >>>>>>> clarified. >>>>>>> Would you really >>>>>>> feel that the entire statement has >>>>>>> to be >>>>>>> dropped as >>>>>>> comment from IGC? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, >>>>>>> Ginger Paque >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shiva, As there seems to be >>>>>>> quite a >>>>>>> bit of controversy >>>>>>> about this >>>>>>> concept and wording, and we are >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> short on time, I >>>>>>> wonder if we >>>>>>> could continue this discussion >>>>>>> after >>>>>>> the questionnaire is >>>>>>> submitted, perhaps for comments >>>>>>> to be >>>>>>> submitted by the >>>>>>> August >>>>>>> deadline? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the meantime, you could >>>>>>> submit your >>>>>>> own comment, >>>>>>> which would >>>>>>> give you more freedom to make your >>>>>>> point. Is that >>>>>>> acceptable to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Ginger >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A quick reply and a little >>>>>>> more later. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>>>>>> 6:12 AM, >>>>>>> Michael Gurstein >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original >>>>>>> Message----- >>>>>>> *From:* Sivasubramanian >>>>>>> Muthusamy >>>>>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>] >>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July >>>>>>> 12, >>>>>>> 2009 6:18 PM >>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>; >>>>>>> Michael Gurstein >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: >>>>>>> [governance] >>>>>>> Question 6: >>>>>>> Comments on Siva's >>>>>>> proposed paras >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>>>>>> 2:50 AM, Michael >>>>>>> Gurstein >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The Internet >>>>>>> Governance Caucus calls >>>>>>> upon the IGF >>>>>>> Secretariat to >>>>>>> fund the >>>>>>> IGF programs and >>>>>>> participation >>>>>>> substantially and >>>>>>> significantly to >>>>>>> further enhance the >>>>>>> quality of programs >>>>>>> with greater >>>>>>> diversity of >>>>>>> participation" >>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>> better? YES... >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are two >>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>> to be considered >>>>>>> in this >>>>>>> regard: a) >>>>>>> The absence or >>>>>>> >>>>>>> non-participation of >>>>>>> some of the world's >>>>>>> most renowned >>>>>>> Civil Society >>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>> leaders is >>>>>>> noticeable; >>>>>>> Business Leaders >>>>>>> who are >>>>>>> otherwise >>>>>>> committed to >>>>>>> social and other >>>>>>> governance issues off >>>>>>> IGF are not >>>>>>> seen at >>>>>>> the IGF; >>>>>>> Governments are not >>>>>>> represented on a >>>>>>> level high enough >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT >>>>>>> EXACTLY >>>>>>> IS MEANT BY >>>>>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>>>>> (IN SOME CIRCLES >>>>>>> THERE >>>>>>> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >>>>>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>>>>> INTERNAL >>>>>>> CONTRADITIONS IN >>>>>>> THAT >>>>>>> SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>>>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>>>>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>>>>>> SECRETARIAT >>>>>>> SHOULD BE >>>>>>> EXPECTED TO >>>>>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>>>>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS >>>>>>> MIGHT >>>>>>> BE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AS WELL, ARE WE >>>>>>> LOOKING >>>>>>> FOR CIVIL >>>>>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>>>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS >>>>>>> IN LEADERSHIP >>>>>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>>>>> ARE WE >>>>>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>>> SPOKESPEOPLE >>>>>>> WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>>>>> ISSUES, OR >>>>>>> ARE WE >>>>>>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>>>>>> OF RESPONSIBLE >>>>>>> REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>>>>> HAVE A >>>>>>> >>>>>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>>>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>>>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>>>>> PROBABLY >>>>>>> DISCREET AND >>>>>>> COULD BE INCLUDED >>>>>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>>>>> UNDER >>>>>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IF BIZ LEADERS >>>>>>> THINK IT >>>>>>> IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>>>>> IMPORTANCE >>>>>>> THEY'LL LIKELY >>>>>>> COME, IF >>>>>>> NOT, NOT AND NOT >>>>>>> MUCH >>>>>>> WE OR THE >>>>>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>>>>> ABOUT >>>>>>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>>>>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I THINK THIS PARA >>>>>>> SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am sorry, I don't >>>>>>> agree >>>>>>> with your negative >>>>>>> interpretation of >>>>>>> such a positive >>>>>>> suggestion. >>>>>>> Are we to assert >>>>>>> that the >>>>>>> present >>>>>>> participants >>>>>>> constitute a >>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>> representative, and >>>>>>> ultimate group >>>>>>> ? NO, BUT >>>>>>> I'M HAVING >>>>>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI >>>>>>> KLEIN OR >>>>>>> VENDANA >>>>>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO >>>>>>> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will have to browse a >>>>>>> little to >>>>>>> learn about Naomi >>>>>>> Klein; >>>>>>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian >>>>>>> name >>>>>>> that sounds >>>>>>> familiar, but I >>>>>>> wasn't thinking of these >>>>>>> names, >>>>>>> nor was my point >>>>>>> intended to >>>>>>> bring in anyone whom I know or >>>>>>> associated with. >>>>>>> Looks like >>>>>>> you are reading between the >>>>>>> lines >>>>>>> of what I write. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HAVING THE >>>>>>> HEAD OF >>>>>>> SEWA OR K-NET >>>>>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>>>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>>>>> MORE USEFUL, >>>>>>> "RENOWNED" OR >>>>>>> NOT, AS THEY AT >>>>>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>>>>> WITH SOME DIRECT >>>>>>> KNOWLEDGE >>>>>>> ABOUT HOW IG >>>>>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>>>>> THEM AND >>>>>>> THE KINDS OF THINGS >>>>>>> THEY >>>>>>> ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>>>>> THE GROUND. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again an Indian reference - >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> have used the word >>>>>>> "Sewa" in >>>>>>> your comment. Perhaps you are >>>>>>> reading me as someone >>>>>>> pushing >>>>>>> the Indian point of view? I am >>>>>>> not. I am born in >>>>>>> India, a >>>>>>> participant from India, I have >>>>>>> faith in and respect >>>>>>> for my >>>>>>> country but I believe that >>>>>>> in an >>>>>>> International >>>>>>> context I am at >>>>>>> least a little wider than a >>>>>>> national. I have been >>>>>>> inspired by >>>>>>> teachers who taught me in my >>>>>>> school days that >>>>>>> "patriotism is a >>>>>>> prejudice" which is profound >>>>>>> thinking which in >>>>>>> depths implies >>>>>>> that one must be beyond being >>>>>>> patriotic and be >>>>>>> rather global. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Will come back this point and >>>>>>> write more in >>>>>>> response to what >>>>>>> you have written a little >>>>>>> later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MBG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> M >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jul 13 17:45:08 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:45:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5BA4E9.1010306@gmail.com> References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> <4A5B9EE6.4080602@wzb.eu> <4A5BA13B.50707@gmail.com> <4A5BA26F.2030503@wzb.eu> <4A5BA4E9.1010306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5BAAE4.3040404@wzb.eu> Ginger Paque wrote: > How would the caucus do this? Just by stating it in the questionnaire? Our responses to the questionnaire will be published on the website and they will be reflected in the "synthesis paper that will be translated into all six UN languages as an official input into the 'consultation with Forum participants' at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." As Parminder said, we can expect that this synthesis paper will get some attention. jeanette > That is not likely to go anywhere is it? How would be go about carrying > this forward? It would be great, but is it possible? I see it as more > likely to be a real proposal if the Secretariat applies for/requests the > funding. Can someone please help me on this? Thanks. gp > > Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> I agree with Jeanette, >> >> On Jul 13, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> In my view, the caucus, not the IGF secretariat, should call upon the >>> UN Member States. Lets see what others say. >>> je >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> Sorry, my mistake, so we would change the first line to read: >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>> apply to **the UN Member States** for substantial funding for IGF >>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>>> Is that correct? >>>> Ginger >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> Hi Ginger, what is wrong with Wolfgang's suggestion: >>>>> >>>>> With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member >>>>> States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in >>>>> such a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But UN >>>>> member states can do this. >>>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>> apply to the UN Member States for substantial funding for IGF >>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to >>>>>> continue this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, >>>>>> which is the following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>>> apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF >>>>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present >>>>>> IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are >>>>>> highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it >>>>>> is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded >>>>>> to include more Civil Society participants known for their >>>>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various >>>>>> Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do >>>>>> not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We >>>>>> mention in for example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with >>>>>> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the >>>>>> poorest of >>>>>> the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting >>>>>> peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an >>>>>> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of >>>>>> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>>>>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners >>>>>> and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource >>>>>> in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding >>>>>> possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts, >>>>>> but availability of various categories of travel grants for >>>>>> participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at >>>>>> the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds >>>>>> available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but >>>>>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>>> >>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >>>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >>>>>> organizations and individual participants) would be several times >>>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing >>>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>>>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent each year. >>>>>> With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker >>>>>> and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the >>>>>> true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the >>>>>> diversity of participation could be significantly improved. >>>>>> >>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >>>>>> that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by >>>>>> grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental >>>>>> and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund >>>>>> could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel >>>>>> speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a >>>>>> greater number of participants with special attention to >>>>>> participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented >>>>>> geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and >>>>>> even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>>>> individual need). >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people >>>>>>> from least developed countries. I do think that the IGF >>>>>>> secretariat should have a reliable funding that ensure >>>>>>> independence from private sector donations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class >>>>>>> flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on >>>>>>> this latter part, I suggested to omit such details. >>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT >>>>>>>> realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook >>>>>>>> unconstrained by the present situation. Another million or two >>>>>>>> or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of >>>>>>>> the IGF body. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find >>>>>>>> a way to find funds to answer thiso call. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the >>>>>>>> IGF in eternal poverty, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like >>>>>>>> it not mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only >>>>>>>> with such a suggestion and in its present form, is there >>>>>>>> anything seriously objectionable with what it says about >>>>>>>> enhancing the quality of programs with greater diversity of >>>>>>>> participation? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another >>>>>>>> California >>>>>>>> as Michael G. suggests. >>>>>>>> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support >>>>>>>> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense >>>>>>>> to call >>>>>>>> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a >>>>>>>> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own >>>>>>>> functioning. >>>>>>>> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should >>>>>>>> come from or how it could be generated. >>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only >>>>>>>> Jeanette who holds this view. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, gp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious >>>>>>>> effort at compromise. However, there are still >>>>>>>> areas I >>>>>>>> cannot agree with. Please consider the following >>>>>>>> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for >>>>>>>> comments >>>>>>>> from others as well: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, >>>>>>>> and then >>>>>>>> edited by Ginger] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>>>>>>> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and >>>>>>>> participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>>>>> programs >>>>>>>> with greater diversity of participation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses >>>>>>>> listed below. I don't understand why we would want to >>>>>>>> "call >>>>>>>> upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>>>>> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in >>>>>>>> light of the lack of such funds. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this >>>>>>>> regard: >>>>>>>> a) Present IGF participants representing various >>>>>>>> stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>>>>>>> individuals with >>>>>>>> diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF >>>>>>>> participation needs to be further expanded to >>>>>>>> include >>>>>>>> more Civil Society participants known for their >>>>>>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF >>>>>>>> arena on >>>>>>>> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders >>>>>>>> who are >>>>>>>> otherwise committed to social and other governance >>>>>>>> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>>>>>> governments >>>>>>>> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present >>>>>>>> attendees >>>>>>>> of the IGF do not represent all participant >>>>>>>> segments and >>>>>>>> geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it >>>>>>>> requires various efforts, but availability of >>>>>>>> various >>>>>>>> categories of travel grants for participants may >>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>> improve participation by those not attending the >>>>>>>> IGF for >>>>>>>> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds >>>>>>>> available >>>>>>>> for representation from Less Developed Countries, >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and >>>>>>>> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, >>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>> Governments, organizations and individual >>>>>>>> participants) >>>>>>>> would be several times that of the actual outflow >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as >>>>>>>> reflected >>>>>>>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>>>>>> estimates >>>>>>>> the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>>>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. >>>>>>>> With >>>>>>>> an increment in funding for travel support to panel >>>>>>>> speaker and participants, which would amount to a >>>>>>>> small >>>>>>>> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the >>>>>>>> quality of >>>>>>>> panels and the diversity of participation could >>>>>>>> be improved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus >>>>>>>> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary >>>>>>>> allocations supported by grants from business, >>>>>>>> governments, well funded non-governmental and >>>>>>>> international organizations and the United >>>>>>>> Nations. The >>>>>>>> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead >>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and >>>>>>>> partial >>>>>>>> fellowships to a greater number of participants with >>>>>>>> special attention to participants from unrepresented >>>>>>>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>>>>>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those >>>>>>>> from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>>>>>> individual need ). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more >>>>>>>> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who >>>>>>>> would add >>>>>>>> further value to the IGF. It is especially >>>>>>>> recommended >>>>>>>> that such a fund carry no link as to the >>>>>>>> positions or >>>>>>>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to >>>>>>>> a grant >>>>>>>> from a business trust with stated or implied >>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>> about the positions to be taken). It is >>>>>>>> recommended that >>>>>>>> the IGF create a fund large enough to have >>>>>>>> significant >>>>>>>> impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>>>>>>> participation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have revised the statement and the changes >>>>>>>> made are >>>>>>>> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with >>>>>>>> html / >>>>>>>> mime settings. ( for the convenience of those >>>>>>>> whose >>>>>>>> mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the >>>>>>>> text as a PDF file which would show the >>>>>>>> highlighted >>>>>>>> changes ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon >>>>>>>> the IGF >>>>>>>> Secretariat to >>>>>>>> fund the IGF programs and participation >>>>>>>> substantially and >>>>>>>> significantly to further enhance the >>>>>>>> quality of >>>>>>>> programs with >>>>>>>> greater diversity of participation. * >>>>>>>> *There are >>>>>>>> two aspects to be >>>>>>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ >>>>>>>> present IGF >>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>> representing various stakeholder groups are >>>>>>>> highly qualified >>>>>>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments >>>>>>>> but it >>>>>>>> is also true that >>>>>>>> IGF participation needs to be further >>>>>>>> expanded to >>>>>>>> invite and >>>>>>>> include more Civil Society participants >>>>>>>> known for >>>>>>>> their commitment >>>>>>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >>>>>>>> various Civil Society >>>>>>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise >>>>>>>> committed to social >>>>>>>> and other governance issues are not seen >>>>>>>> at the >>>>>>>> IGF, and not all >>>>>>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and >>>>>>>> though not for >>>>>>>> financial reasons, the present >>>>>>>> participants from >>>>>>>> Government are >>>>>>>> not represented on a high enough level ) - >>>>>>>> [ this >>>>>>>> sentence in >>>>>>>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary >>>>>>>> as it >>>>>>>> is not directly >>>>>>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present >>>>>>>> participants of the IGF >>>>>>>> do not represent all participant segments and >>>>>>>> geographic regions. >>>>>>>> This needs to be improved and it requires >>>>>>>> various >>>>>>>> efforts, but >>>>>>>> availability of various categories of Travel >>>>>>>> Grants for different >>>>>>>> classes of participants may help improve >>>>>>>> participation by those >>>>>>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF >>>>>>>> already has made some >>>>>>>> funds available for representation from Less >>>>>>>> Developed Countries, >>>>>>>> but such funding achieves a limited >>>>>>>> objective. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all >>>>>>>> visible >>>>>>>> and invisible >>>>>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>>>>>>> Governments, >>>>>>>> organizations and individual participants) >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> be several times >>>>>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF >>>>>>>> Secretariat in organizing >>>>>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of >>>>>>>> accounts. If an economist >>>>>>>> estimates the total visible and invisible >>>>>>>> costs >>>>>>>> of the IGF, it >>>>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already >>>>>>>> spent. >>>>>>>> For want of a >>>>>>>> marginal allocation for travel support to >>>>>>>> panel >>>>>>>> speaker and >>>>>>>> participants, which would amount to a small >>>>>>>> proportion of the true >>>>>>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> diversity of >>>>>>>> participation are compromised. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance >>>>>>>> Caucus recommends >>>>>>>> that the IGF should consider liberal >>>>>>>> budgetary >>>>>>>> allocations >>>>>>>> supported by unconditional grants from >>>>>>>> business, >>>>>>>> governments, well >>>>>>>> funded non-governmental and international >>>>>>>> organizations and the >>>>>>>> United Nations. The fund may extend >>>>>>>> uncompromising, comfortable >>>>>>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead >>>>>>>> participants (panel >>>>>>>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely >>>>>>>> invitees who are >>>>>>>> required to be well-received for >>>>>>>> participation), >>>>>>>> full and partial >>>>>>>> fellowships to a large number of participants >>>>>>>> with special >>>>>>>> attention to participants from unrepresented >>>>>>>> categories >>>>>>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>>>>>> unrepresented participant >>>>>>>> segments and even to those from affluent, >>>>>>>> represented regions if >>>>>>>> there is an individual need ). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in >>>>>>>> really diverse >>>>>>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would >>>>>>>> add >>>>>>>> further value to >>>>>>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that >>>>>>>> such a >>>>>>>> fund may be >>>>>>>> built up from contributions that are >>>>>>>> unconditional (as opposed to >>>>>>>> a grant from a business trust with stated or >>>>>>>> implied conditions >>>>>>>> about the positions to be taken; >>>>>>>> 'unconditional' >>>>>>>> does not imply >>>>>>>> that funds may have to be disbursed >>>>>>>> without even >>>>>>>> the basic >>>>>>>> conditions that the recipient should >>>>>>>> attend the >>>>>>>> IGF and attend the >>>>>>>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" >>>>>>>> means something >>>>>>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel >>>>>>>> Grants whereby IGF >>>>>>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, >>>>>>>> Governments, >>>>>>>> International Organizations, well funded >>>>>>>> NGOs and >>>>>>>> UN with no >>>>>>>> implied conditions on the positions to be >>>>>>>> taken >>>>>>>> by participants*)* >>>>>>>> and may be awarded to panelists and >>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>> unconditionally. >>>>>>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >>>>>>>> large enough to have >>>>>>>> significant impact in further enhancing >>>>>>>> quality >>>>>>>> and diversity of >>>>>>>> participation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>>>>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian >>>>>>>> Muthusamy >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Will have just a little time to spend on >>>>>>>> this, >>>>>>>> will review the >>>>>>>> complete questionnaire comments, and >>>>>>>> reword the >>>>>>>> Q6 comment, but >>>>>>>> don't really have a lot of time today. >>>>>>>> Leaving >>>>>>>> for the city in a >>>>>>>> few hours for a short trip, will find some >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>> to work tomorrow >>>>>>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather >>>>>>>> than as an >>>>>>>> independent proposal, which I could have >>>>>>>> sent it >>>>>>>> on my own but >>>>>>>> preferred not to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shiva. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Shiva, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - >>>>>>>> including myself, >>>>>>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and >>>>>>>> others, are >>>>>>>> not yet satisfied >>>>>>>> with the wording on the funding >>>>>>>> concept. You >>>>>>>> are welcome to >>>>>>>> continue the discussion and see if you >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> reach a consensus >>>>>>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time >>>>>>>> everyone is happy, the >>>>>>>> statement won't say much of anything. >>>>>>>> Could >>>>>>>> you review the >>>>>>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what >>>>>>>> you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness >>>>>>>> to discuss. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Ginger >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You would like this submitted as >>>>>>>> my own >>>>>>>> comment, rather >>>>>>>> than as an IGC statement? Is this >>>>>>>> only on >>>>>>>> Q6 or does it >>>>>>>> also apply to Q3? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There were further exchanges between >>>>>>>> Gurstein and me, and >>>>>>>> the misunderstanding are being >>>>>>>> clarified. >>>>>>>> Would you really >>>>>>>> feel that the entire statement has >>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>> dropped as >>>>>>>> comment from IGC? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, >>>>>>>> Ginger Paque >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shiva, As there seems to be >>>>>>>> quite a >>>>>>>> bit of controversy >>>>>>>> about this >>>>>>>> concept and wording, and we are >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> short on time, I >>>>>>>> wonder if we >>>>>>>> could continue this discussion >>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>> the questionnaire is >>>>>>>> submitted, perhaps for comments >>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>> submitted by the >>>>>>>> August >>>>>>>> deadline? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the meantime, you could >>>>>>>> submit your >>>>>>>> own comment, >>>>>>>> which would >>>>>>>> give you more freedom to make your >>>>>>>> point. Is that >>>>>>>> acceptable to you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Ginger >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A quick reply and a little >>>>>>>> more later. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>>>>>>> 6:12 AM, >>>>>>>> Michael Gurstein >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original >>>>>>>> Message----- >>>>>>>> *From:* Sivasubramanian >>>>>>>> Muthusamy >>>>>>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>] >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July >>>>>>>> 12, >>>>>>>> 2009 6:18 PM >>>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>; >>>>>>>> Michael Gurstein >>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: >>>>>>>> [governance] >>>>>>>> Question 6: >>>>>>>> Comments on Siva's >>>>>>>> proposed paras >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>>>>>>> 2:50 AM, Michael >>>>>>>> Gurstein >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The Internet >>>>>>>> Governance Caucus calls >>>>>>>> upon the IGF >>>>>>>> Secretariat to >>>>>>>> fund the >>>>>>>> IGF programs and >>>>>>>> participation >>>>>>>> substantially and >>>>>>>> significantly to >>>>>>>> further enhance the >>>>>>>> quality of programs >>>>>>>> with greater >>>>>>>> diversity of >>>>>>>> participation" >>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>> better? YES... >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are two >>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>> to be considered >>>>>>>> in this >>>>>>>> regard: a) >>>>>>>> The absence or >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> non-participation of >>>>>>>> some of the world's >>>>>>>> most renowned >>>>>>>> Civil Society >>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>> leaders is >>>>>>>> noticeable; >>>>>>>> Business Leaders >>>>>>>> who are >>>>>>>> otherwise >>>>>>>> committed to >>>>>>>> social and other >>>>>>>> governance issues off >>>>>>>> IGF are not >>>>>>>> seen at >>>>>>>> the IGF; >>>>>>>> Governments are not >>>>>>>> represented on a >>>>>>>> level high enough >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT >>>>>>>> EXACTLY >>>>>>>> IS MEANT BY >>>>>>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>>>>>> (IN SOME CIRCLES >>>>>>>> THERE >>>>>>>> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >>>>>>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>>>>>> INTERNAL >>>>>>>> CONTRADITIONS IN >>>>>>>> THAT >>>>>>>> SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>>>>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>>>>>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>>>>>>> SECRETARIAT >>>>>>>> SHOULD BE >>>>>>>> EXPECTED TO >>>>>>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>>>>>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS >>>>>>>> MIGHT >>>>>>>> BE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> AS WELL, ARE WE >>>>>>>> LOOKING >>>>>>>> FOR CIVIL >>>>>>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>>>>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS >>>>>>>> IN LEADERSHIP >>>>>>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>>>>>> ARE WE >>>>>>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>>>> SPOKESPEOPLE >>>>>>>> WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>>>>>> ISSUES, OR >>>>>>>> ARE WE >>>>>>>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>>>>>>> OF RESPONSIBLE >>>>>>>> REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>>>>>> HAVE A >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>>>>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>>>>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>>>>>> PROBABLY >>>>>>>> DISCREET AND >>>>>>>> COULD BE INCLUDED >>>>>>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>>>>>> UNDER >>>>>>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF BIZ LEADERS >>>>>>>> THINK IT >>>>>>>> IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>>>>>> IMPORTANCE >>>>>>>> THEY'LL LIKELY >>>>>>>> COME, IF >>>>>>>> NOT, NOT AND NOT >>>>>>>> MUCH >>>>>>>> WE OR THE >>>>>>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>>>>>> ABOUT >>>>>>>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>>>>>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I THINK THIS PARA >>>>>>>> SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am sorry, I don't >>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>> with your negative >>>>>>>> interpretation of >>>>>>>> such a positive >>>>>>>> suggestion. >>>>>>>> Are we to assert >>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>> constitute a >>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>> representative, and >>>>>>>> ultimate group >>>>>>>> ? NO, BUT >>>>>>>> I'M HAVING >>>>>>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI >>>>>>>> KLEIN OR >>>>>>>> VENDANA >>>>>>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO >>>>>>>> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will have to browse a >>>>>>>> little to >>>>>>>> learn about Naomi >>>>>>>> Klein; >>>>>>>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian >>>>>>>> name >>>>>>>> that sounds >>>>>>>> familiar, but I >>>>>>>> wasn't thinking of these >>>>>>>> names, >>>>>>>> nor was my point >>>>>>>> intended to >>>>>>>> bring in anyone whom I know or >>>>>>>> associated with. >>>>>>>> Looks like >>>>>>>> you are reading between the >>>>>>>> lines >>>>>>>> of what I write. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HAVING THE >>>>>>>> HEAD OF >>>>>>>> SEWA OR K-NET >>>>>>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>>>>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>>>>>> MORE USEFUL, >>>>>>>> "RENOWNED" OR >>>>>>>> NOT, AS THEY AT >>>>>>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>>>>>> WITH SOME DIRECT >>>>>>>> KNOWLEDGE >>>>>>>> ABOUT HOW IG >>>>>>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>>>>>> THEM AND >>>>>>>> THE KINDS OF THINGS >>>>>>>> THEY >>>>>>>> ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>>>>>> THE GROUND. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again an Indian reference - >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> have used the word >>>>>>>> "Sewa" in >>>>>>>> your comment. Perhaps you are >>>>>>>> reading me as someone >>>>>>>> pushing >>>>>>>> the Indian point of view? I am >>>>>>>> not. I am born in >>>>>>>> India, a >>>>>>>> participant from India, I have >>>>>>>> faith in and respect >>>>>>>> for my >>>>>>>> country but I believe that >>>>>>>> in an >>>>>>>> International >>>>>>>> context I am at >>>>>>>> least a little wider than a >>>>>>>> national. I have been >>>>>>>> inspired by >>>>>>>> teachers who taught me in my >>>>>>>> school days that >>>>>>>> "patriotism is a >>>>>>>> prejudice" which is profound >>>>>>>> thinking which in >>>>>>>> depths implies >>>>>>>> that one must be beyond being >>>>>>>> patriotic and be >>>>>>>> rather global. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Will come back this point and >>>>>>>> write more in >>>>>>>> response to what >>>>>>>> you have written a little >>>>>>>> later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MBG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 17:53:56 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:23:56 -0430 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5BAAE4.3040404@wzb.eu> References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> <4A5B9EE6.4080602@wzb.eu> <4A5BA13B.50707@gmail.com> <4A5BA26F.2030503@wzb.eu> <4A5BA4E9.1010306@gmail.com> <4A5BAAE4.3040404@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A5BACF4.4080106@gmail.com> So this would read (comments invited): The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation. gp Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> How would the caucus do this? Just by stating it in the questionnaire? > > Our responses to the questionnaire will be published on the website > and they will be reflected in the "synthesis paper that will be > translated into all six UN languages as an official input into the > 'consultation with Forum participants' at the Sharm El Sheikh > meeting." As Parminder said, we can expect that this synthesis paper > will get some attention. > > jeanette > >> That is not likely to go anywhere is it? How would be go about >> carrying this forward? It would be great, but is it possible? I see >> it as more likely to be a real proposal if the Secretariat applies >> for/requests the funding. Can someone please help me on this? Thanks. gp >> >> Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>> I agree with Jeanette, >>> >>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>>> In my view, the caucus, not the IGF secretariat, should call upon >>>> the UN Member States. Lets see what others say. >>>> je >>>> >>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>> Sorry, my mistake, so we would change the first line to read: >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>> apply to **the UN Member States** for substantial funding for IGF >>>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>>>> Is that correct? >>>>> Ginger >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> Hi Ginger, what is wrong with Wolfgang's suggestion: >>>>>> >>>>>> With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member >>>>>> States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in >>>>>> such a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But >>>>>> UN member states can do this. >>>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>> apply to the UN Member States for substantial funding for IGF >>>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>>>>> jeanette >>>>>> >>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>>> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to >>>>>>> continue this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, >>>>>>> which is the following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>>>> apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF >>>>>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) >>>>>>> Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups >>>>>>> are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments >>>>>>> but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further >>>>>>> expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for >>>>>>> their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >>>>>>> various Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of >>>>>>> the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic >>>>>>> regions. We mention in for example: Indigenous peoples >>>>>>> worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and >>>>>>> particularly those who are the poorest of >>>>>>> the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting >>>>>>> peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an >>>>>>> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of >>>>>>> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>>>>>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as >>>>>>> practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a >>>>>>> primary resource in support of broad-based economic and social >>>>>>> development. Funding possibilities need to be improved and it >>>>>>> requires various efforts, but availability of various categories >>>>>>> of travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by >>>>>>> those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already >>>>>>> has made some funds available for representation from Less >>>>>>> Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible >>>>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, >>>>>>> organizations and individual participants) would be several >>>>>>> times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in >>>>>>> organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If >>>>>>> an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of >>>>>>> the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already being >>>>>>> spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel support >>>>>>> to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small >>>>>>> proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of >>>>>>> panels and the diversity of participation could be significantly >>>>>>> improved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends >>>>>>> that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by >>>>>>> grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental >>>>>>> and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund >>>>>>> could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel >>>>>>> speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a >>>>>>> greater number of participants with special attention to >>>>>>> participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented >>>>>>> geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and >>>>>>> even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>>>>> individual need). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>>> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people >>>>>>>> from least developed countries. I do think that the IGF >>>>>>>> secretariat should have a reliable funding that ensure >>>>>>>> independence from private sector donations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class >>>>>>>> flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on >>>>>>>> this latter part, I suggested to omit such details. >>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the >>>>>>>>> PRESENT realities and the statement stems from a positive >>>>>>>>> outlook unconstrained by the present situation. Another >>>>>>>>> million or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way >>>>>>>>> beyond the reach of the IGF body. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will >>>>>>>>> find a way to find funds to answer thiso call. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep >>>>>>>>> the IGF in eternal poverty, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would >>>>>>>>> like it not mentioned what is funded. The statement is >>>>>>>>> complete only with such a suggestion and in its present form, >>>>>>>>> is there anything seriously objectionable with what it says >>>>>>>>> about enhancing the quality of programs with greater diversity >>>>>>>>> of participation? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another >>>>>>>>> California >>>>>>>>> as Michael G. suggests. >>>>>>>>> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to >>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense >>>>>>>>> to call >>>>>>>>> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a >>>>>>>>> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own >>>>>>>>> functioning. >>>>>>>>> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money >>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>> come from or how it could be generated. >>>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only >>>>>>>>> Jeanette who holds this view. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, gp >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious >>>>>>>>> effort at compromise. However, there are still >>>>>>>>> areas I >>>>>>>>> cannot agree with. Please consider the following >>>>>>>>> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for >>>>>>>>> comments >>>>>>>>> from others as well: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, >>>>>>>>> and then >>>>>>>>> edited by Ginger] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>>>>>>>> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and >>>>>>>>> participation to further enhance the quality of >>>>>>>>> programs >>>>>>>>> with greater diversity of participation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses >>>>>>>>> listed below. I don't understand why we would want >>>>>>>>> to "call >>>>>>>>> upon the IGF Secretariat to >>>>>>>>> > substantially fund IGF programs and >>>>>>>>> participation" in >>>>>>>>> light of the lack of such funds. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this >>>>>>>>> regard: >>>>>>>>> a) Present IGF participants representing various >>>>>>>>> stakeholder groups are highly qualified >>>>>>>>> individuals with >>>>>>>>> diverse accomplishments but it is also true >>>>>>>>> that IGF >>>>>>>>> participation needs to be further expanded to >>>>>>>>> include >>>>>>>>> more Civil Society participants known for their >>>>>>>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF >>>>>>>>> arena on >>>>>>>>> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders >>>>>>>>> who are >>>>>>>>> otherwise committed to social and other governance >>>>>>>>> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all >>>>>>>>> governments >>>>>>>>> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present >>>>>>>>> attendees >>>>>>>>> of the IGF do not represent all participant >>>>>>>>> segments and >>>>>>>>> geographic regions. This needs to be improved >>>>>>>>> and it >>>>>>>>> requires various efforts, but availability of >>>>>>>>> various >>>>>>>>> categories of travel grants for participants >>>>>>>>> may help >>>>>>>>> improve participation by those not attending >>>>>>>>> the IGF for >>>>>>>>> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds >>>>>>>>> available >>>>>>>>> for representation from Less Developed >>>>>>>>> Countries, but >>>>>>>>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, >>>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>>> Governments, organizations and individual >>>>>>>>> participants) >>>>>>>>> would be several times that of the actual >>>>>>>>> outflow from >>>>>>>>> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as >>>>>>>>> reflected >>>>>>>>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist >>>>>>>>> estimates >>>>>>>>> the total visible and invisible costs of the >>>>>>>>> IGF, it >>>>>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already >>>>>>>>> spent. With >>>>>>>>> an increment in funding for travel support to >>>>>>>>> panel >>>>>>>>> speaker and participants, which would amount to >>>>>>>>> a small >>>>>>>>> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the >>>>>>>>> quality of >>>>>>>>> panels and the diversity of participation could >>>>>>>>> be improved. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance >>>>>>>>> Caucus >>>>>>>>> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary >>>>>>>>> allocations supported by grants from business, >>>>>>>>> governments, well funded non-governmental and >>>>>>>>> international organizations and the United >>>>>>>>> Nations. The >>>>>>>>> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and >>>>>>>>> partial >>>>>>>>> fellowships to a greater number of participants >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> special attention to participants from >>>>>>>>> unrepresented >>>>>>>>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions >>>>>>>>> and/or >>>>>>>>> unrepresented participant segments and even to >>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>> from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>>>>>>>> individual need ). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more >>>>>>>>> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who >>>>>>>>> would add >>>>>>>>> further value to the IGF. It is especially >>>>>>>>> recommended >>>>>>>>> that such a fund carry no link as to the >>>>>>>>> positions or >>>>>>>>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed >>>>>>>>> to a grant >>>>>>>>> from a business trust with stated or implied >>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>> about the positions to be taken). It is >>>>>>>>> recommended that >>>>>>>>> the IGF create a fund large enough to have >>>>>>>>> significant >>>>>>>>> impact in further enhancing quality and >>>>>>>>> diversity of >>>>>>>>> participation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have revised the statement and the changes >>>>>>>>> made are >>>>>>>>> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with >>>>>>>>> html / >>>>>>>>> mime settings. ( for the convenience of >>>>>>>>> those whose >>>>>>>>> mail settings are plain text, I am >>>>>>>>> attaching the >>>>>>>>> text as a PDF file which would show the >>>>>>>>> highlighted >>>>>>>>> changes ) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls >>>>>>>>> upon the IGF >>>>>>>>> Secretariat to >>>>>>>>> fund the IGF programs and participation >>>>>>>>> substantially and >>>>>>>>> significantly to further enhance the >>>>>>>>> quality of >>>>>>>>> programs with >>>>>>>>> greater diversity of participation. * >>>>>>>>> *There are >>>>>>>>> two aspects to be >>>>>>>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ >>>>>>>>> present IGF >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> representing various stakeholder groups are >>>>>>>>> highly qualified >>>>>>>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments >>>>>>>>> but it >>>>>>>>> is also true that >>>>>>>>> IGF participation needs to be further >>>>>>>>> expanded to >>>>>>>>> invite and >>>>>>>>> include more Civil Society participants >>>>>>>>> known for >>>>>>>>> their commitment >>>>>>>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF >>>>>>>>> arena on >>>>>>>>> various Civil Society >>>>>>>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise >>>>>>>>> committed to social >>>>>>>>> and other governance issues are not seen >>>>>>>>> at the >>>>>>>>> IGF, and not all >>>>>>>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> though not for >>>>>>>>> financial reasons, the present >>>>>>>>> participants from >>>>>>>>> Government are >>>>>>>>> not represented on a high enough level ) >>>>>>>>> - [ this >>>>>>>>> sentence in >>>>>>>>> parenthesis may be deleted if >>>>>>>>> unnecessary as it >>>>>>>>> is not directly >>>>>>>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present >>>>>>>>> participants of the IGF >>>>>>>>> do not represent all participant >>>>>>>>> segments and >>>>>>>>> geographic regions. >>>>>>>>> This needs to be improved and it >>>>>>>>> requires various >>>>>>>>> efforts, but >>>>>>>>> availability of various categories of >>>>>>>>> Travel >>>>>>>>> Grants for different >>>>>>>>> classes of participants may help improve >>>>>>>>> participation by those >>>>>>>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. >>>>>>>>> IGF >>>>>>>>> already has made some >>>>>>>>> funds available for representation from >>>>>>>>> Less >>>>>>>>> Developed Countries, >>>>>>>>> but such funding achieves a limited >>>>>>>>> objective. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all >>>>>>>>> visible >>>>>>>>> and invisible >>>>>>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>>>>>>>> Governments, >>>>>>>>> organizations and individual >>>>>>>>> participants) would >>>>>>>>> be several times >>>>>>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF >>>>>>>>> Secretariat in organizing >>>>>>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of >>>>>>>>> accounts. If an economist >>>>>>>>> estimates the total visible and >>>>>>>>> invisible costs >>>>>>>>> of the IGF, it >>>>>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is >>>>>>>>> already spent. >>>>>>>>> For want of a >>>>>>>>> marginal allocation for travel support >>>>>>>>> to panel >>>>>>>>> speaker and >>>>>>>>> participants, which would amount to a small >>>>>>>>> proportion of the true >>>>>>>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels >>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>> diversity of >>>>>>>>> participation are compromised. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet >>>>>>>>> Governance >>>>>>>>> Caucus recommends >>>>>>>>> that the IGF should consider liberal >>>>>>>>> budgetary >>>>>>>>> allocations >>>>>>>>> supported by unconditional grants from >>>>>>>>> business, >>>>>>>>> governments, well >>>>>>>>> funded non-governmental and international >>>>>>>>> organizations and the >>>>>>>>> United Nations. The fund may extend >>>>>>>>> uncompromising, comfortable >>>>>>>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead >>>>>>>>> participants (panel >>>>>>>>> speakers, program organizers, who are >>>>>>>>> largely >>>>>>>>> invitees who are >>>>>>>>> required to be well-received for >>>>>>>>> participation), >>>>>>>>> full and partial >>>>>>>>> fellowships to a large number of >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> with special >>>>>>>>> attention to participants from >>>>>>>>> unrepresented >>>>>>>>> categories >>>>>>>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>>>>>>>> unrepresented participant >>>>>>>>> segments and even to those from affluent, >>>>>>>>> represented regions if >>>>>>>>> there is an individual need ). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to >>>>>>>>> bring in >>>>>>>>> really diverse >>>>>>>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who >>>>>>>>> would add >>>>>>>>> further value to >>>>>>>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended >>>>>>>>> that such a >>>>>>>>> fund may be >>>>>>>>> built up from contributions that are >>>>>>>>> unconditional (as opposed to >>>>>>>>> a grant from a business trust with >>>>>>>>> stated or >>>>>>>>> implied conditions >>>>>>>>> about the positions to be taken; >>>>>>>>> 'unconditional' >>>>>>>>> does not imply >>>>>>>>> that funds may have to be disbursed >>>>>>>>> without even >>>>>>>>> the basic >>>>>>>>> conditions that the recipient should >>>>>>>>> attend the >>>>>>>>> IGF and attend the >>>>>>>>> sessions etc. In this context >>>>>>>>> "unconditional" >>>>>>>>> means something >>>>>>>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel >>>>>>>>> Grants whereby IGF >>>>>>>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, >>>>>>>>> Governments, >>>>>>>>> International Organizations, well funded >>>>>>>>> NGOs and >>>>>>>>> UN with no >>>>>>>>> implied conditions on the positions to >>>>>>>>> be taken >>>>>>>>> by participants*)* >>>>>>>>> and may be awarded to panelists and >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> unconditionally. >>>>>>>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a >>>>>>>>> fund >>>>>>>>> large enough to have >>>>>>>>> significant impact in further enhancing >>>>>>>>> quality >>>>>>>>> and diversity of >>>>>>>>> participation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>>>>>>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian >>>>>>>>> Muthusamy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Will have just a little time to spend on >>>>>>>>> this, >>>>>>>>> will review the >>>>>>>>> complete questionnaire comments, and >>>>>>>>> reword the >>>>>>>>> Q6 comment, but >>>>>>>>> don't really have a lot of time today. >>>>>>>>> Leaving >>>>>>>>> for the city in a >>>>>>>>> few hours for a short trip, will find >>>>>>>>> some time >>>>>>>>> to work tomorrow >>>>>>>>> as well, but not tonight. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, >>>>>>>>> rather >>>>>>>>> than as an >>>>>>>>> independent proposal, which I could have >>>>>>>>> sent it >>>>>>>>> on my own but >>>>>>>>> preferred not to. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shiva. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger >>>>>>>>> Paque >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Shiva, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of >>>>>>>>> us - >>>>>>>>> including myself, >>>>>>>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and >>>>>>>>> others, are >>>>>>>>> not yet satisfied >>>>>>>>> with the wording on the funding >>>>>>>>> concept. You >>>>>>>>> are welcome to >>>>>>>>> continue the discussion and see if >>>>>>>>> you can >>>>>>>>> reach a consensus >>>>>>>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time >>>>>>>>> everyone is happy, the >>>>>>>>> statement won't say much of >>>>>>>>> anything. Could >>>>>>>>> you review the >>>>>>>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us >>>>>>>>> what you think? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. I appreciate your >>>>>>>>> willingness to discuss. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Ginger >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Ginger >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You would like this submitted as >>>>>>>>> my own >>>>>>>>> comment, rather >>>>>>>>> than as an IGC statement? Is >>>>>>>>> this only on >>>>>>>>> Q6 or does it >>>>>>>>> also apply to Q3? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There were further exchanges >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>> Gurstein and me, and >>>>>>>>> the misunderstanding are being >>>>>>>>> clarified. >>>>>>>>> Would you really >>>>>>>>> feel that the entire statement >>>>>>>>> has to be >>>>>>>>> dropped as >>>>>>>>> comment from IGC? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, >>>>>>>>> Ginger Paque >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shiva, As there seems to be >>>>>>>>> quite a >>>>>>>>> bit of controversy >>>>>>>>> about this >>>>>>>>> concept and wording, and we >>>>>>>>> are very >>>>>>>>> short on time, I >>>>>>>>> wonder if we >>>>>>>>> could continue this >>>>>>>>> discussion after >>>>>>>>> the questionnaire is >>>>>>>>> submitted, perhaps for >>>>>>>>> comments to be >>>>>>>>> submitted by the >>>>>>>>> August >>>>>>>>> deadline? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, you could >>>>>>>>> submit your >>>>>>>>> own comment, >>>>>>>>> which would >>>>>>>>> give you more freedom to make >>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>> point. Is that >>>>>>>>> acceptable to you? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Ginger >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A quick reply and a >>>>>>>>> little more later. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>>>>>>>> 6:12 AM, >>>>>>>>> Michael Gurstein >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original >>>>>>>>> Message----- >>>>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian >>>>>>>>> Muthusamy >>>>>>>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>] >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, >>>>>>>>> July 12, >>>>>>>>> 2009 6:18 PM >>>>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>; >>>>>>>>> Michael Gurstein >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: >>>>>>>>> [governance] >>>>>>>>> Question 6: >>>>>>>>> Comments on Siva's >>>>>>>>> proposed paras >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Michael >>>>>>>>> Gurstein, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, >>>>>>>>> 2009 at >>>>>>>>> 2:50 AM, Michael >>>>>>>>> Gurstein >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The Internet >>>>>>>>> Governance Caucus calls >>>>>>>>> upon the IGF >>>>>>>>> Secretariat to >>>>>>>>> fund the >>>>>>>>> IGF programs and >>>>>>>>> participation >>>>>>>>> substantially and >>>>>>>>> significantly to >>>>>>>>> further enhance the >>>>>>>>> quality of >>>>>>>>> programs >>>>>>>>> with greater >>>>>>>>> diversity of >>>>>>>>> participation" >>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>> better? YES... >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are two >>>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>>> to be considered >>>>>>>>> in this >>>>>>>>> regard: a) >>>>>>>>> The absence or >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> non-participation of >>>>>>>>> some of the world's >>>>>>>>> most renowned >>>>>>>>> Civil Society >>>>>>>>> opinion >>>>>>>>> leaders is >>>>>>>>> noticeable; >>>>>>>>> Business Leaders >>>>>>>>> who are >>>>>>>>> otherwise >>>>>>>>> committed to >>>>>>>>> social and other >>>>>>>>> governance issues off >>>>>>>>> IGF are not >>>>>>>>> seen at >>>>>>>>> the IGF; >>>>>>>>> Governments >>>>>>>>> are not >>>>>>>>> represented on a >>>>>>>>> level high enough >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT >>>>>>>>> EXACTLY >>>>>>>>> IS MEANT BY >>>>>>>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>>>>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>>>>> OPINION LEADERS" >>>>>>>>> (IN SOME >>>>>>>>> CIRCLES THERE >>>>>>>>> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >>>>>>>>> PROBABLY MORE >>>>>>>>> INTERNAL >>>>>>>>> CONTRADITIONS >>>>>>>>> IN THAT >>>>>>>>> SIMPLE STATEMENT >>>>>>>>> AND CERTAINLY >>>>>>>>> NEITHER WE NOR >>>>>>>>> THE >>>>>>>>> SECRETARIAT >>>>>>>>> SHOULD BE >>>>>>>>> EXPECTED TO >>>>>>>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>>>>>>>> "RENOWNED" >>>>>>>>> FOLKS MIGHT >>>>>>>>> BE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> AS WELL, ARE >>>>>>>>> WE LOOKING >>>>>>>>> FOR CIVIL >>>>>>>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>>>>>>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>>>>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS >>>>>>>>> IN LEADERSHIP >>>>>>>>> POSITIONS, OR >>>>>>>>> ARE WE >>>>>>>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>>>>>>>> SOCIETY >>>>>>>>> SPOKESPEOPLE >>>>>>>>> WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>>>>>>>> ISSUES, OR >>>>>>>>> ARE WE >>>>>>>>> LOOKING FOR >>>>>>>>> LEADERS >>>>>>>>> OF RESPONSIBLE >>>>>>>>> REPRESENTATIVE CS >>>>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>>>>>>>> HAVE A >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>>>>>>>> (EACH OF THESE >>>>>>>>> CATEGORIES IS >>>>>>>>> PROBABLY >>>>>>>>> DISCREET AND >>>>>>>>> COULD BE INCLUDED >>>>>>>>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>>>>>>>> UNDER >>>>>>>>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IF BIZ LEADERS >>>>>>>>> THINK IT >>>>>>>>> IS OF SUFFICIENT >>>>>>>>> IMPORTANCE >>>>>>>>> THEY'LL LIKELY >>>>>>>>> COME, IF >>>>>>>>> NOT, NOT AND >>>>>>>>> NOT MUCH >>>>>>>>> WE OR THE >>>>>>>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>>>>>>>> ABOUT >>>>>>>>> THAT AND >>>>>>>>> SIMILARLY >>>>>>>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I THINK THIS PARA >>>>>>>>> SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am sorry, I >>>>>>>>> don't agree >>>>>>>>> with your negative >>>>>>>>> interpretation of >>>>>>>>> such a positive >>>>>>>>> suggestion. >>>>>>>>> Are we to assert >>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> constitute a >>>>>>>>> complete, >>>>>>>>> representative, and >>>>>>>>> ultimate group >>>>>>>>> ? NO, BUT >>>>>>>>> I'M HAVING >>>>>>>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI >>>>>>>>> KLEIN OR >>>>>>>>> VENDANA >>>>>>>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO >>>>>>>>> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I will have to browse a >>>>>>>>> little to >>>>>>>>> learn about Naomi >>>>>>>>> Klein; >>>>>>>>> Vendana Shiva is an >>>>>>>>> Indian name >>>>>>>>> that sounds >>>>>>>>> familiar, but I >>>>>>>>> wasn't thinking of these >>>>>>>>> names, >>>>>>>>> nor was my point >>>>>>>>> intended to >>>>>>>>> bring in anyone whom I >>>>>>>>> know or >>>>>>>>> associated with. >>>>>>>>> Looks like >>>>>>>>> you are reading between >>>>>>>>> the lines >>>>>>>>> of what I write. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HAVING THE >>>>>>>>> HEAD OF >>>>>>>>> SEWA OR K-NET >>>>>>>>> WOULD SEEM TO >>>>>>>>> ME TO BE RATHER >>>>>>>>> MORE USEFUL, >>>>>>>>> "RENOWNED" OR >>>>>>>>> NOT, AS THEY AT >>>>>>>>> LEAST COULD TALK >>>>>>>>> WITH SOME DIRECT >>>>>>>>> KNOWLEDGE >>>>>>>>> ABOUT HOW IG >>>>>>>>> ISSUES IMPACT >>>>>>>>> THEM AND >>>>>>>>> THE KINDS OF >>>>>>>>> THINGS THEY >>>>>>>>> ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>>>>>>>> THE GROUND. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again an Indian reference >>>>>>>>> - you >>>>>>>>> have used the word >>>>>>>>> "Sewa" in >>>>>>>>> your comment. Perhaps you >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> reading me as someone >>>>>>>>> pushing >>>>>>>>> the Indian point of view? >>>>>>>>> I am >>>>>>>>> not. I am born in >>>>>>>>> India, a >>>>>>>>> participant from India, I >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> faith in and respect >>>>>>>>> for my >>>>>>>>> country but I believe >>>>>>>>> that in an >>>>>>>>> International >>>>>>>>> context I am at >>>>>>>>> least a little wider than a >>>>>>>>> national. I have been >>>>>>>>> inspired by >>>>>>>>> teachers who taught me in my >>>>>>>>> school days that >>>>>>>>> "patriotism is a >>>>>>>>> prejudice" which is profound >>>>>>>>> thinking which in >>>>>>>>> depths implies >>>>>>>>> that one must be beyond >>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>> patriotic and be >>>>>>>>> rather global. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (Will come back this >>>>>>>>> point and >>>>>>>>> write more in >>>>>>>>> response to what >>>>>>>>> you have written a little >>>>>>>>> later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MBG >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 18:32:26 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:02:26 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> References: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> Hi everyone, Please read this draft carefully. As far as I know, we are only missing consensus on Shiva's portion of Q6, and the update (from Fouad) on Q4. Is that correct? Please opine. Please send your comments as soon as possible, as we should reach consensus and do a final edit tomorrow. I will be traveling on Wednesday and will be offline from 3 a.m. (7:30 GMT) to 3 p.m. (19:30 GMT) so I would really like to finish this tomorrow if possible to make sure we post within the deadline. Thanks. Ginger 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged from how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at least three areas 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models than exclusively statist ones. 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during WSIS, and less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals, due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder groups. One might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other international policy process and governments perceive civil society participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the mutlistakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? [Fouad Basra is working on this as it needs to be completely updated] At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus would like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of the IGF. MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as appropriate. *Membership of the MAG* • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. • In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications. • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. *Role and Structure of the MAG* With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. *Special Advisors and Chair* The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase. And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through difficult formative times 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. 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 need 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. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation remote, including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” We include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is competitive and convenient. Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help others to start. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the annual IGF meeting. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by Ginger, not yet seen by Shiva] The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation.^ There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We mention in for example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be significantly improved. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need). 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 23:02:29 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:32:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871931A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871931A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello Wolfgang Kleinwahcter, If the funding for the IGF is provided for UN member states, then as the statement has already been amended subsequent to your message effectively CONVEYS the need and idea, which we hope would cause this action item to be initiated by the UN. However, does the fact that UN has provided the initial funding limit the IGF Secrearaiat from acting as a Calalyst for a fund that is open for contributions from Business, International Organizations, NGOs, Charitable Trusts and individuals In that case the scale of funds sought from Member States on this area is not a signifcant sum, and it may not be a buredn for Member States to commit and grant the required funds, but if for some reason the process of debate at the UN gets delayed on this action item, or if the decision is not full, the need may at least be temporarily be unfulfilled. So the Caucus may find a way to word this point in such a way that the idea of mutli-stakeholder contribution to this mutlistakholder fund is mooted. It does not sound right that IGF as a multi-stakholder forum is confined to depend only on Governmental contributions. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2009/7/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member States > who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in such a sense that > it could collect money on a regular basis. But UN member states can do this. > I agree that this issue has to be raised but we should be very carefully > not to feed any illusions and to organoze unrealistic pressure into wrong > directions. Look what happend with the Digital Solidarity Fund. The question > of financing the IGF should be on the agenda of the UN GA in 2010 when the > GA has to draft a resolution for the continuation of the IGF if member > states plan to continue with the IGF. > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mo 13.07.2009 19:17 > An: Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque; Michael Gurstein > Betreff: Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras > > > Hello Jeanette Hoffmann > > The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT realities > and the statement stems from a positive outlook unconstrained by the present > situation. Another million or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't > way beyond the reach of the IGF body. > > 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a way to > find funds to answer thiso call. > > 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF in > eternal poverty, > > I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it not > mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with such a > suggestion and in its present form, is there anything seriously > objectionable with what it says about enhancing the quality of programs with > greater diversity of participation? > > Thank you. > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > > Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another California > as Michael G. suggests. > Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support > people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to call upon > somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a significant amount of > time on soliciting donations for its own functioning. > If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should > come from or how it could be generated. > jeanette > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only > Jeanette who holds this view. > > Thanks, gp > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a > serious effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I cannot agree > with. Please consider the following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope > for comments from others as well: > > [The following text was re-submitted by > Shiva, and then edited by Ginger] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon > the IGF Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and participation to > further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of > participation. > > > > The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the > expenses listed below. I don't understand why we would want to "call upon > the IGF Secretariat to > > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" > in light of the lack of such funds. > > jeanette > > > > There are two aspects to be considered in > this regard: a) Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder > groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it > is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include > more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance > issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are represented at > the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all > participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and > it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of > travel grants for participants may help improve participation by those not > attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds > available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding > achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all > visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating > Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several > times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the > IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts.. If an economist estimates > the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous > sum, which is already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support > to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion > of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of > participation could be improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance > Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations > supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental > and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend > travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), > full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with > special attention to participants from unrepresented categories > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments > and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an > individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in > more diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to > the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to > the positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant > from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions > to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to > have significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of > participation. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and > All, > > Have revised the statement and the > changes made are highlighted. This mail is best viewed with html / mime > settings. ( for the convenience of those whose mail settings are plain text, > I am attaching the text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted > changes ) > > Thank you > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > The Internet Governance Caucus > calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > fund the IGF programs and > participation substantially and > significantly to further enhance > the quality of programs with > greater diversity of > participation. * *There are two aspects to be > considered in this regard: a) > WSIS/ present IGF participants > representing various stakeholder > groups are highly qualified > individuals with diverse > accomplishments but it is also true that > IGF participation needs to be > further expanded to invite and > include more Civil Society > participants known for their commitment > and accomplishments outside the > IGF arena on various Civil Society > causes ; business leaders who are > otherwise committed to social > and other governance issues are > not seen at the IGF, and not all > governments are represented at > the IGF ( and though not for > financial reasons, the present > participants from Government are > not represented on a high enough > level ) - [ this sentence in > parenthesis may be deleted if > unnecessary as it is not directly > relevant to the point ] and b) > The present participants of the IGF > do not represent all participant > segments and geographic regions. > This needs to be improved and it > requires various efforts, but > availability of various > categories of Travel Grants for different > classes of participants may help > improve participation by those > not attending the IGF for want of > funds. IGF already has made some > funds available for > representation from Less Developed Countries, > but such funding achieves a > limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF > (including all visible and invisible > costs to the IGF Secretariat, > participating Governments, > organizations and individual > participants) would be several times > that of the actual outflow from > the IGF Secretariat in organizing > the IGF, as reflected in the IGF > book of accounts. If an economist > estimates the total visible and > invisible costs of the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which > is already spent. For want of a > marginal allocation for travel > support to panel speaker and > participants, which would amount > to a small proportion of the true > cost of the IGF, the quality of > panels and the diversity of > participation are compromised. > > With this rationale, the Internet > Governance Caucus recommends > that the IGF should consider > liberal budgetary allocations > supported by unconditional grants > from business, governments, well > funded non-governmental and > international organizations and the > United Nations. The fund may > extend uncompromising, comfortable > travel grants/ honorarium to 200 > lead participants (panel > speakers, program organizers, who > are largely invitees who are > required to be well-received for > participation), full and partial > fellowships to a large number of > participants with special > attention to participants from > unrepresented categories > (unrepresented geographic regions > and/or unrepresented participant > segments and even to those from > affluent, represented regions if > there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF > to bring in really diverse > opinions to the IGF from experts > who would add further value to > the IGF. It is especially > recommended that such a fund may be > built up from contributions that > are unconditional (as opposed to > a grant from a business trust > with stated or implied conditions > about the positions to be taken; > 'unconditional' does not imply > that funds may have to be > disbursed without even the basic > conditions that the recipient > should attend the IGF and attend the > sessions etc. In this context > "unconditional" means something > larger. It is to hint at a system > of Travel Grants whereby IGF > will pool funds from Business > Corporations, Governments, > International Organizations, well > funded NGOs and UN with no > implied conditions on the > positions to be taken by participants*)* > and may be awarded to panelists > and participants unconditionally. > It is recommended that the IGF > create a fund large enough to have > significant impact in further > enhancing quality and diversity of > participation. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: > http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > Will have just a little time to > spend on this, will review the > complete questionnaire comments, > and reword the Q6 comment, but > don't really have a lot of time > today. Leaving for the city in a > few hours for a short trip, will > find some time to work tomorrow > as well, but not tonight. > > Would prefer this as an IGC > statement, rather than as an > independent proposal, which I > could have sent it on my own but > preferred not to. > > Shiva. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, > Ginger Paque > > wrote: > > Hi Shiva, > > I was referring to Q6, as > several of us - including myself, > and Ian, as well as Michael > and others, are not yet satisfied > with the wording on the > funding concept. You are welcome to > continue the discussion and > see if you can reach a consensus > on it, but I suspect that by > the time everyone is happy, the > statement won't say much of > anything. Could you review the > thread on Q6, including Ian's > answer to the complete > questionnaire draft, and tell > us what you think? > > Let's look at Q 3 separately, > ok? > > Thanks. I appreciate your > willingness to discuss. > > Best, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > You would like this > submitted as my own comment, rather > than as an IGC statement? > Is this only on Q6 or does it > also apply to Q3? > > There were further > exchanges between Gurstein and me, and > the misunderstanding are > being clarified. Would you really > feel that the entire > statement has to be dropped as > comment from IGC? > > Thanks. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at > 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque > gpaque at gmail.com> > gpaque at gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Shiva, As there seems > to be quite a bit of controversy > about this > concept and wording, > and we are very short on time, I > wonder if we > could continue this > discussion after the questionnaire is > submitted, perhaps for > comments to be submitted by the > August > deadline? > > In the meantime, you > could submit your own comment, > which would > give you more freedom > to make your point. Is that > acceptable to you? > > Regards, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Michael > Gurstein > > A quick reply and > a little more later. > > On Mon, Jul 13, > 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein > < > gurstein at gmail.com > gurstein at gmail.com > > gurstein at gmail.com > gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>>>> wrote: > > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > [mailto: > isolatedn at gmail.com > isolatedn at gmail.com> isolatedn at gmail.com>> > isolatedn at gmail.com > isolatedn at gmail.com> isolatedn at gmail.com>>>] > *Sent:* > Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM > *To:* > governance at lists.cpsr.org > governance at lists.cpsr.org> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > governance at lists.cpsr.org>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > governance at lists.cpsr.org> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > governance at lists.cpsr.org>>>; Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* > Re: [governance] Question 6: > Comments on Siva's > proposed > paras > > Hello > Michael Gurstein, > > On Mon, Jul > 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael > Gurstein > < > gurstein at gmail.com > gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>> > gurstein at gmail.com > gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>>>> wrote: > > > > > "The > Internet Governance Caucus calls > upon the IGF > > Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and > participation > > substantially and significantly to > further enhance the > quality > of programs with greater > diversity of > > participation" sounds better? YES... > Thanks. > > > > There > are two aspects to be considered > in this > regard: a) > The > absence or > > non-participation of some of the world's > most renowned > Civil > Society opinion > leaders > is noticeable; Business Leaders > who are > otherwise > > committed to > social > and other governance issues off > IGF are not > seen at > the > IGF; > > Governments are not represented on a > level high enough > > HMMM. > WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY > "RENOWNED CIVIL > SOCIETY > OPINION > LEADERS" > (IN > SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND > PROBABLY MORE > > INTERNAL > > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT > AND CERTAINLY > NEITHER > WE NOR THE > > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO > IDENTIFY WHO THESE > > "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT > BE. > > AS > WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > FOLKS > FROM CIVIL > SOCIETY > ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP > POSITIONS, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING > FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY > SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG > ISSUES, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING > FOR LEADERS > OF > RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS > ORGANIZATIONS WHO > HAVE A > > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES > (EACH OF THESE > > CATEGORIES IS > > PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED > AMBIGUOUSLY > UNDER > YOUR > STATEMENT. > > IF BIZ > LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT > IMPORTANCE > THEY'LL > LIKELY COME, IF > NOT, > NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE > SECRETARIAT CAN DO > ABOUT > THAT > AND SIMILARLY > WITH > GOVERNMENTS. > > I THINK > THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > I am sorry, > I don't agree with your negative > interpretation of > such a > positive suggestion. Are we to assert > that the > present > > participants constitute a complete, > representative, and > ultimate > group ? NO, BUT > I'M HAVING > TROUBLE SEEING > WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA > SHIVA WOULD > HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > I will have to > browse a little to learn about Naomi > Klein; > Vendana Shiva is > an Indian name that sounds > familiar, but I > wasn't thinking of > these names, nor was my point > intended to > bring in anyone > whom I know or associated with. > Looks like > you are reading > between the lines of what I write. > > > HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET > WOULD SEEM TO > ME TO BE RATHER > MORE > USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT > LEAST COULD TALK > WITH SOME > DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG > ISSUES IMPACT > THEM AND > THE KINDS > OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON > THE GROUND. > > Again an Indian > reference - you have used the word > "Sewa" in > your comment. > Perhaps you are reading me as someone > pushing > the Indian point > of view? I am not. I am born in > India, a > participant from > India, I have faith in and respect > for my > country but I > believe that in an International > context I am at > least a little > wider than a national. I have been > inspired by > teachers who > taught me in my school days that > "patriotism is a > prejudice" which > is profound thinking which in > depths implies > that one must be > beyond being patriotic and be > rather global. > > (Will come back > this point and write more in > response to what > you have written a > little later) > > Thank you. > Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy. > > > MBG > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > M > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You > received this message as a > subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > governance at lists.cpsr.org> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > governance at lists.cpsr.org>> > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > governance at lists.cpsr.org>>> > To be > removed from the list, send any > message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>> > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 23:11:45 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:41:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: References: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871931A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: (with apologies for having rushed this message without checking for semantic errors) Corrected message: If the funding for the IGF is provided for by the UN member states, then the statement as already been amended subsequent to your message effectively CONVEYS the need and idea, which we hope would cause this action item to be initiated by the UN. However, does the fact that UN has provided the initial funding limit the IGF Secretariat from acting as a Catalyst for a Fund that is open for contributions from Business, International Organizations, NGOs, Charitable Trusts and individuals? If it is a question of increasing the contribution from Member States, the scale of increase sought from Member States on this area is not significant, and it may not be a burden for Member States to commit and grant the required funds, but, if for some reason the process of debate at the UN gets delayed on this action item, or if the decision is not full, the need may at least temporarily be unfulfilled. So the Caucus may find a way to word this point in such a way that the idea of mluti-stakeholder contribution to this multi-stakeholder fund is mooted. It does not sound right that IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum is confined to depend on contribution from one of the stakeholders only. 2009/7/14 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > If the funding for the IGF is provided for UN member states, then as the > statement has already been amended subsequent to your message effectively > CONVEYS the need and idea, which we hope would cause this action item to be > initiated by the UN. However, does the fact that UN has provided the initial > funding limit the IGF Secrearaiat from acting as a Calalyst for a fund that > is open for contributions from Business, International Organizations, NGOs, > Charitable Trusts and individuals > > In that case the scale of funds sought from Member States on this area is > not a signifcant sum, and it may not be a buredn for Member States to commit > and grant the required funds, but if for some reason the process of debate > at the UN gets delayed on this action item, or if the decision is not full, > the need may at least be temporarily be unfulfilled. So the Caucus may find > a way to word this point in such a way that the idea of mutli-stakeholder > contribution to this mutlistakholder fund is mooted. > > It does not sound right that IGF as a multi-stakholder forum is confined to > depend only on Governmental contributions. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 23:27:34 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:57:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> References: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger, Hello All, Thanks for modifying this text, but what is wrong with the idea of unconditionality? That part is excluded from the text ? IGC statements are sometimes? rushed out at the last moment, and in the last minute rush as the deadline approaches, the time-constraint justifies a more-than-necessary compromise, or the point is dropped completely. I feel that it is signinficant to propose the clause of unconditionality, perhaps for further debate at the MAG, and later in the process of acting upon this point. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to continue this > discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, which is the following. Do > please comment and suggest revisions. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply to > the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF programs and > participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster greater > diversity of participation. > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified > individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF > participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society > participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF > arena on various Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the > IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We > mention in for example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with > disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of > the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting peer-to-peer > and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those > looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to > specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as > practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary > resource in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding > possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts, but > availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may > help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. > The IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less > Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the > IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual > participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF > Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. > If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, > it would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent each year. With an > increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, > which would amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, > the quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be > significantly improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF > should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, > governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations > and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead > participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial > fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to > participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions > and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, > represented regions if there is an individual need). > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people from least >> developed countries. I do think that the IGF secretariat should have a >> reliable funding that ensure independence from private sector donations. >> >> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class flights >> and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on this latter part, I >> suggested to omit such details. >> jeanette >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >>> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann >>> >>> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT >>> realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook unconstrained by >>> the present situation. Another million or two or ten or twenty for that >>> matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the IGF body. >>> >>> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a way to >>> find funds to answer thiso call. >>> >>> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF in >>> eternal poverty, >>> >>> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it not >>> mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with such a >>> suggestion and in its present form, is there anything seriously >>> objectionable with what it says about enhancing the quality of programs with >>> greater diversity of participation? >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another California >>> as Michael G. suggests. >>> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support >>> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to call >>> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a >>> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own >>> functioning. >>> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should >>> come from or how it could be generated. >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only >>> Jeanette who holds this view. >>> >>> Thanks, gp >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious >>> effort at compromise. However, there are still areas I >>> cannot agree with. Please consider the following >>> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments >>> from others as well: >>> >>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then >>> edited by Ginger] >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and >>> participation to further enhance the quality of programs >>> with greater diversity of participation. >>> >>> >>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses >>> listed below. I don't understand why we would want to "call >>> upon the IGF Secretariat to >>> > substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in >>> light of the lack of such funds. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: >>> a) Present IGF participants representing various >>> stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with >>> diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF >>> participation needs to be further expanded to include >>> more Civil Society participants known for their >>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >>> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders who are >>> otherwise committed to social and other governance >>> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments >>> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees >>> of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and >>> geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it >>> requires various efforts, but availability of various >>> categories of travel grants for participants may help >>> improve participation by those not attending the IGF for >>> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available >>> for representation from Less Developed Countries, but >>> such funding achieves a limited objective. >>> >>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and >>> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>> Governments, organizations and individual participants) >>> would be several times that of the actual outflow from >>> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates >>> the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it >>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. With >>> an increment in funding for travel support to panel >>> speaker and participants, which would amount to a small >>> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of >>> panels and the diversity of participation could be >>> improved. >>> >>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus >>> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary >>> allocations supported by grants from business, >>> governments, well funded non-governmental and >>> international organizations and the United Nations. The >>> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead participants >>> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial >>> fellowships to a greater number of participants with >>> special attention to participants from unrepresented >>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>> unrepresented participant segments and even to those >>> from affluent, represented regions if there is an >>> individual need ). >>> >>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more >>> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >>> further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended >>> that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or >>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant >>> from a business trust with stated or implied conditions >>> about the positions to be taken). It is recommended that >>> the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant >>> impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of >>> participation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, >>> >>> Have revised the statement and the changes made are >>> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with html / >>> mime settings. ( for the convenience of those whose >>> mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the >>> text as a PDF file which would show the highlighted >>> changes ) >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF >>> Secretariat to >>> fund the IGF programs and participation >>> substantially and >>> significantly to further enhance the quality of >>> programs with >>> greater diversity of participation. * *There are >>> two aspects to be >>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF >>> participants >>> representing various stakeholder groups are >>> highly qualified >>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it >>> is also true that >>> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to >>> invite and >>> include more Civil Society participants known for >>> their commitment >>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on >>> various Civil Society >>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise >>> committed to social >>> and other governance issues are not seen at the >>> IGF, and not all >>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and >>> though not for >>> financial reasons, the present participants from >>> Government are >>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this >>> sentence in >>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it >>> is not directly >>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present >>> participants of the IGF >>> do not represent all participant segments and >>> geographic regions. >>> This needs to be improved and it requires various >>> efforts, but >>> availability of various categories of Travel >>> Grants for different >>> classes of participants may help improve >>> participation by those >>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF >>> already has made some >>> funds available for representation from Less >>> Developed Countries, >>> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >>> >>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible >>> and invisible >>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating >>> Governments, >>> organizations and individual participants) would >>> be several times >>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF >>> Secretariat in organizing >>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of >>> accounts. If an economist >>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs >>> of the IGF, it >>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. >>> For want of a >>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel >>> speaker and >>> participants, which would amount to a small >>> proportion of the true >>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the >>> diversity of >>> participation are compromised. >>> >>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance >>> Caucus recommends >>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary >>> allocations >>> supported by unconditional grants from business, >>> governments, well >>> funded non-governmental and international >>> organizations and the >>> United Nations. The fund may extend >>> uncompromising, comfortable >>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead >>> participants (panel >>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely >>> invitees who are >>> required to be well-received for participation), >>> full and partial >>> fellowships to a large number of participants >>> with special >>> attention to participants from unrepresented >>> categories >>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or >>> unrepresented participant >>> segments and even to those from affluent, >>> represented regions if >>> there is an individual need ). >>> >>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in >>> really diverse >>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add >>> further value to >>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a >>> fund may be >>> built up from contributions that are >>> unconditional (as opposed to >>> a grant from a business trust with stated or >>> implied conditions >>> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' >>> does not imply >>> that funds may have to be disbursed without even >>> the basic >>> conditions that the recipient should attend the >>> IGF and attend the >>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" >>> means something >>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel >>> Grants whereby IGF >>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, >>> Governments, >>> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and >>> UN with no >>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken >>> by participants*)* >>> and may be awarded to panelists and participants >>> unconditionally. >>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund >>> large enough to have >>> significant impact in further enhancing quality >>> and diversity of >>> participation. >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>> >>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian >>> Muthusamy >> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger >>> >>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, >>> will review the >>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the >>> Q6 comment, but >>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving >>> for the city in a >>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time >>> to work tomorrow >>> as well, but not tonight. >>> >>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather >>> than as an >>> independent proposal, which I could have sent it >>> on my own but >>> preferred not to. >>> >>> Shiva. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque >>> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Shiva, >>> >>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - >>> including myself, >>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are >>> not yet satisfied >>> with the wording on the funding concept. You >>> are welcome to >>> continue the discussion and see if you can >>> reach a consensus >>> on it, but I suspect that by the time >>> everyone is happy, the >>> statement won't say much of anything. Could >>> you review the >>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the >>> complete >>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you >>> think? >>> >>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? >>> >>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to >>> discuss. >>> >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger >>> >>> You would like this submitted as my own >>> comment, rather >>> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on >>> Q6 or does it >>> also apply to Q3? >>> >>> There were further exchanges between >>> Gurstein and me, and >>> the misunderstanding are being clarified. >>> Would you really >>> feel that the entire statement has to be >>> dropped as >>> comment from IGC? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger >>> Paque >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a >>> bit of controversy >>> about this >>> concept and wording, and we are very >>> short on time, I >>> wonder if we >>> could continue this discussion after >>> the questionnaire is >>> submitted, perhaps for comments to be >>> submitted by the >>> August >>> deadline? >>> >>> In the meantime, you could submit your >>> own comment, >>> which would >>> give you more freedom to make your >>> point. Is that >>> acceptable to you? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Michael Gurstein >>> >>> A quick reply and a little more >>> later. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, >>> Michael Gurstein >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* Sivasubramanian >>> Muthusamy >>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com >>> >>> >> > >>> >> isolatedn at gmail.com> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> isolatedn at gmail.com> >>> >> >>>] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, >>> 2009 6:18 PM >>> *To:* >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>>; Michael >>> Gurstein >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] >>> Question 6: >>> Comments on Siva's >>> proposed paras >>> >>> Hello Michael Gurstein, >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at >>> 2:50 AM, Michael >>> Gurstein >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "The Internet >>> Governance Caucus calls >>> upon the IGF >>> Secretariat to fund the >>> IGF programs and >>> participation >>> substantially and >>> significantly to >>> further enhance the >>> quality of programs >>> with greater >>> diversity of >>> participation" sounds >>> better? YES... >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are two aspects >>> to be considered >>> in this >>> regard: a) >>> The absence or >>> non-participation of >>> some of the world's >>> most renowned >>> Civil Society opinion >>> leaders is noticeable; >>> Business Leaders >>> who are >>> otherwise >>> committed to >>> social and other >>> governance issues off >>> IGF are not >>> seen at >>> the IGF; >>> Governments are not >>> represented on a >>> level high enough >>> >>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY >>> IS MEANT BY >>> "RENOWNED CIVIL >>> SOCIETY >>> OPINION LEADERS" >>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE >>> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND >>> PROBABLY MORE >>> INTERNAL >>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT >>> SIMPLE STATEMENT >>> AND CERTAINLY >>> NEITHER WE NOR THE >>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE >>> EXPECTED TO >>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE >>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT >>> BE. >>> >>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING >>> FOR CIVIL >>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR >>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL >>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS >>> IN LEADERSHIP >>> POSITIONS, OR >>> ARE WE >>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL >>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE >>> WHO UNDERSTAND IG >>> ISSUES, OR >>> ARE WE >>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS >>> OF RESPONSIBLE >>> REPRESENTATIVE CS >>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO >>> HAVE A >>> >>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES >>> (EACH OF THESE >>> CATEGORIES IS >>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND >>> COULD BE INCLUDED >>> AMBIGUOUSLY >>> UNDER >>> YOUR STATEMENT. >>> >>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT >>> IS OF SUFFICIENT >>> IMPORTANCE >>> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF >>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH >>> WE OR THE >>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO >>> ABOUT >>> THAT AND SIMILARLY >>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. >>> >>> I THINK THIS PARA >>> SHOULD BE DROPPED... >>> >>> >>> I am sorry, I don't agree >>> with your negative >>> interpretation of >>> such a positive suggestion. >>> Are we to assert >>> that the >>> present >>> participants constitute a >>> complete, >>> representative, and >>> ultimate group ? >>> NO, BUT >>> I'M HAVING >>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR >>> VENDANA >>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO >>> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... >>> >>> I will have to browse a little to >>> learn about Naomi >>> Klein; >>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name >>> that sounds >>> familiar, but I >>> wasn't thinking of these names, >>> nor was my point >>> intended to >>> bring in anyone whom I know or >>> associated with. >>> Looks like >>> you are reading between the lines >>> of what I write. >>> >>> HAVING THE HEAD OF >>> SEWA OR K-NET >>> WOULD SEEM TO >>> ME TO BE RATHER >>> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR >>> NOT, AS THEY AT >>> LEAST COULD TALK >>> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE >>> ABOUT HOW IG >>> ISSUES IMPACT >>> THEM AND >>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY >>> ARE TRYING TO DO ON >>> THE GROUND. >>> >>> Again an Indian reference - you >>> have used the word >>> "Sewa" in >>> your comment. Perhaps you are >>> reading me as someone >>> pushing >>> the Indian point of view? I am >>> not. I am born in >>> India, a >>> participant from India, I have >>> faith in and respect >>> for my >>> country but I believe that in an >>> International >>> context I am at >>> least a little wider than a >>> national. I have been >>> inspired by >>> teachers who taught me in my >>> school days that >>> "patriotism is a >>> prejudice" which is profound >>> thinking which in >>> depths implies >>> that one must be beyond being >>> patriotic and be >>> rather global. >>> >>> (Will come back this point and >>> write more in >>> response to what >>> you have written a little later) >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. >>> >>> MBG >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From robin at ipjustice.org Mon Jul 13 23:33:00 2009 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:33:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN Accountable to the Global Public Interest? - ICANN Ignores Noncommercial Users in Internet Policy Development Process Message-ID: Article with hyperlinks for further background at: http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html Is ICANN Accountable to the Global Public Interest? ICANN Ignores Non-Commercial Users in Internet Policy Development Process By Robin D. Gross, IP Justice - 13 July 2009 Everyone is a Noncommercial User of the Internet NCUC logoThe Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home to noncommercial users in ICANN's GNSO policy development process. NCUC represents 109 members from more than 40 countries, and includes large organizations, small nonprofits and individuals committed to developing Internet policy that protects the rights of noncommercial users. NCUC is concerned with a broad range of issues including human rights such as freedom of expression and privacy protections, educational needs such as those of libraries or academic institutions, and concerns from community and religious organizations, consumer rights groups, and other noncommercial interests related to Internet governance. (All noncommercial organizations and individuals are invited to join NCUC). In today's world, everyone is a noncommercial user of the Internet at one point or another of our day. This noncommercial interest, is an important interest which we all share, regardless of what we do for a living or the fact that we also use the Internet for commercial purposes. We are also noncommercial users and want our ability and right to use the Internet for noncommercial purposes to be protected in ICANN policy negotiations. This objective is in everyone's interest, so it should be respected throughout ICANN's policy development process and governance structures. Restructuring ICANN's GNSO Policy Development Framework ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organizations (GNSO) is the supposedly "bottom-up" process that allegedly provides ICANN with legitimacy to make and enforce Internet policy decisions. ICANN's GNSO is responsible for making policy recommendations to ICANN's Board of Directors regarding policies covering all generic top-level domains (such as .com, .edu, .org, .net). Presently GNSO policy recommendations are negotiated among competing interests or 6 distinct "constituencies". However, the GNSO is the process of restructuring and reforming its membership away from 6 arbitrary and out-dated "constituencies" and into 4 distinct "stakeholder groups": i) noncommercial users; ii) commercial users; iii) registrar companies; and iv) registry companies. Board Appointed (top-down) vs. Elected (bottom-up) Represent ion on GNSO Council Noncommercial users have been fighting for years to obtain parity with commercial users in the GNSO policy development process at ICANN. A 2006 report by the London School of Economics found ICANN undervalues noncommercial interests in the policy development process (5 specialized commercial constituencies vs. 1 noncommercial constituency to represent all noncommercial interests). In February 2008 the Board Governance Committee Report also recognized this imbalance and the need to address it in order to protect noncommercial interests in ICANN policy development. As a result, the ICANN Board approved a major shift for ICANN's GNSO by deciding noncommercial users should finally be given parity with commercial users in the GNSO policy development process. Specifically, beginning with the Seoul ICANN Meeting in October 2009, noncommercial users and commercial users are each supposed to have elected 6 representatives to the GNSO Council. However, as a result of back channel lobbying by the commercial constituencies who lost the advantage in numbers of councilors, the 3 new GNSO Council seats that should have gone up for election to noncommercial users, will instead become board appointments. Despite the lack of any support from ICANN, NCUC's membership has grown by more than 125% since 2008 when parity between commercial and noncommercial interests was established by the Board Governance Committee. Yet despite the significant increase in participation from noncommercial users, the "parity principle" has lost support from the board, who now may deny the new noncommercial membership elected representation on the GNSO Council. Development of Consensus for Charter for Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) In April 2009 noncommercial users responded to ICANN's call for public comment on how to design a stakeholder group charter to maximize the effectiveness of noncommercial users in policy development and encourage the broadest range of participation from the most diverse viewpoints. The answer was clear: noncommercial users overwhelmingly supported a stakeholder group charter that encourages cooperation between constituencies, the charter proposed by the NCUC. NCUC's charter was developed by a multi-stakeholder process that involved months of open consultations, dozens of participants, numerous discussions with ICANN board and staff, At-Large members, existing noncommercial participants at ICANN and prospective noncommercial participants. NCUC's charter went through significant modifications in response to public feedback, including more than half a dozen distinct public drafts, before reaching a consensus on the final charter submitted for a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). In addition to NCUC's membership, ICANN's public comment period on the stakeholder group charters brought additional support to the NCUC charter, including support from over 63 organizations and dozens of individuals from all corners of the globe. Public Comment Against a Charter that Would Stranglehold Noncommercial Users Two competing proposals, vastly different in their substance and effect, were submitted to ICANN to charter the new Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). In addition to the charter supported by civil society from NCUC, another proposal was submitted from CP80, an Internet pro-censorship group led by Cheryl Preston, Ralph Yarro III (SCO Chairman), and Debra Peck out of Salt Lake City, Utah. Outside from the drafters of the CP80 petition, not a single public comment argued in support of the CP80 proposal or its governance model during ICANN's Public Comment Period. The lack of public support for the CP80 "constituency-based" voting model is not surprising since its provisions would stranglehold noncommercial users in endless competition among factionalized constituencies, constantly fighting over scarce resources and representation on ICANN's GNSO Council. NCUC's charter encourages noncommercial users to work together toward shared goals, while the CP80 model keeps noncommercial users constantly fighting over their differences, and ultimately ineffective at influencing policy decisions at ICANN. Noncommercial Organizations Unanimous in Favor of Joint Civil Society Proposal During ICANN's April 2009 Public Comment period, a total of 23 distinct comments from organizations and individuals were submitted on the topic of stakeholder group charters. Several of these comments were signed by dozens of noncommercial organizations and individuals, increasing public participation by much more than 23 comments would initially imply. However of these 23 comments, the only 2 to argue in favor of the CP80 proposal to hard-wire GNSO Council Seats to constituencies were the drafters of the proposal themselves. No one else. As many commentators noted, CP80's proposed "constituency-based" structure would stranglehold noncommercial users and discourage consensus building and cooperation among competing constituencies. The "constituency-based" voting it proposes creates a constant zero- sum struggle between noncommercial constituencies, rendering the entire Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group ineffective in ICANN policy development. In stark contrast to the lack of any support for the CP80 model, more than 63 organizations and 55 individuals submitted comments in favor of the joint civil society charter that provides for a democratic vote of all its membership to elect representatives to serve on the GNSO Council. Every single noncommercial organization who submitted a public comment on the topic argued against the stranglehold charter model proposed by CP80 and in favor of the cooperation charter submitted by noncommercial users and created through a consensus process. ICANN Defies Public Comment and Imposes Stranglehold Charter Model What did ICANN do in response to the public comment it received and the global consensus against the stranglehold charter model proposed by CP80? ICANN adopted the stranglehold charter model for noncommercial users, defying the unanimous public support expressed for the charter drafted by noncommercial users that was created through a consensus process. Welcome to "bottom-up" policy making at ICANN: where participants are invited to build a "consensus" among a broad range of interests, only to have that consensus discarded by ICANN as a result of relentless insider back-channel lobbying from special interests. Apparently we noncommercial users wasted our time building consensus among global civil society and participating in a public discussion forum, when we should have been lobbying ICANN board members and ICANN executive staffers -- since that seems to be the only channel of public input ICANN feels accountable to. Obviously, noncommercial users will never be able to effectively participate in a policy development forum that is predicated on and dominated by insider lobbying from entrenched commercial interests. ICANN's Board of Directors has a responsibility to the global public interest to ensure noncommercial interests can play a meaningful role in ICANN policy development despite its lack of economic backing. Unfortunately protection for noncommercial interests is systematically being squeezed-out of ICANN's policy development process by commercial interests. ICANN's Sneaky Move to Keep Plans Hidden On 23 June 2009, when ICANN finally released its proposed charter to noncommercial users, in addition to the charter being an entirely different structure than the one created by the consensus process, ICANN's charter also omitted to include the most important section 5 which deals with management of the NCSG and in particular, representation on the GNSO Policy Council. Only after explicitly requesting to see the omitted section, was NCUC provided section 5 from ICANN with the understanding that it is staff's proposal for governing the NCSG. One will not find ICANN's proposed section 5 in its NCSG charter published on the ICANN website, but it can read be read here -- and it must be read together with the ICANN-drafted NCSG charter for it be clear what sneakiness is at play. Exactly the stranglehold governance structure that noncommercial users uniformly rejected in April, ICANN intends to march ahead with at full steam and impose on noncommercial users. But not transparently and not in a manner that conveys its clear intentions to the public so those affected may provide feedback. When asked at the 23 June 2009 ICANN meeting why didn't staff listen to non-commercial users in the public comment period about how they want to elect their GNSO Council Representatives, ICANN spokesman Ken Bour frankly said that ICANN staff adopted the constituency-based charter "because it is what staff wanted all along". Tell ICANN to Listen to Noncommercial Users and Protect the Public Interest The message is clear. ICANN has forgotten who it works for - us - Internet users - including noncommercial users. Now is the time to remind ICANN that it must be accountable to the global public interest or it has no business in Internet governance. Tell ICANN to listen to noncommercial users and not to impose the stranglehold charter on noncommercial users against our will. Send an email to gnso-stakeholder-charters at icann.org (until 21 July 2009) and ask that noncommercial voices be heard in Internet policy decisions. Send a copy of your comment to your local Congressman or Member of Parliament to keep them informed about ICANN injustices to noncommercial users. You can also file a complaint over ICANN injustices with the ombudsman, who is supposed to keep the organization accountable to the public. Thomas Jefferson noted that the exercise of political power without the consent of the governed is illegitimate. ICANN's attempt to impose a governance structure on noncommercial users against our will calls into question ICANN's legitimacy to govern; it undermines confidence in ICANN's commitment to democratic values; and it appears ICANN is unable to protect the broader public interest against commercial pressures. We must remind ICANN to protect the public interest and the rights of noncommercial users - all of us. Send a quick email to gnso- stakeholder-charters at icann.org today to remind ICANN who they work for. All noncommercial organizations and individuals are invited to join NCUC: http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/main/authorization/signUp More Background Information: http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jul 14 00:01:18 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:01:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is really starting to take shape! A few comments below. On 14/07/09 8:32 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Hi everyone, > Please read this draft carefully. As far as I know, we are only missing > consensus on Shiva's portion of Q6, and the update (from Fouad) on Q4. > Is that correct? Please opine. > > Please send your comments as soon as possible, as we should reach > consensus and do a final edit tomorrow. I will be traveling on > Wednesday and will be offline from 3 a.m. (7:30 GMT) to 3 p.m. (19:30 > GMT) so I would really like to finish this tomorrow if possible to make > sure we post within the deadline. > > Thanks. Ginger > > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis > > Agenda? > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, > and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary > innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up > the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF > take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on > them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real > policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged from > how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If > this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF > is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It > needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable > 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area > of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' > (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental > organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 > c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its > mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing > ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the > Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying > emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at > least three areas > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of > view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it > is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > policy models than exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for > multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional > initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > I am happy with this text and would support it in its current form or with minor changes. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.² Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and > assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. > The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s > statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as > a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet > the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > Again, I am happy with this text > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during > WSIS, and less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals, due to the > request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that > include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is > posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder groups. > One might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in > IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your > involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted > in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder > process changed or affected your perspective on any particular > governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other > international policy process and governments perceive civil society > participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory phase > as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an > opportunity to experience the mutlistakholder participatory process of > the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. > This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF > process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory > governance process and this will have other widespread impact. > Good! Happy here as well > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? [Fouad Basra is working on > this as it needs to be completely updated] > > At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the > Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus would like > to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term > "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official > purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of > the IGF. > > MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to > making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the > new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are > of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the > other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally > discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand > that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. > All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries > of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should > be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics > are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such > topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as > appropriate. Do we need this paragraph? I am not sure the two e-lists suggestion is all that useful in achieving transparency and openness. Suggest some of this can be edited out ?Is this the section Fouad is working on? > > *Membership of the MAG* > > € The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required > balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so > large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present > circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One > third of MAG members should be rotated every year. > € In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities > of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the > Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is > associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly > established, and made open along with due justifications. Not sure this paragraph is necessary or that I agree with it. Direct stakeholder representation isnt always effective. > € Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among > all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary > to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. YES > € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should > continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. YES > € Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate > processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that > it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given > set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular > stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially > in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope > for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, > however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations > from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept > to the minimum. This wont happen so I don't know why we should bother to ask for it. Its important that the overall MAG have geographic and gender balance and that cant be achieved if each sector chooses its own slate. > € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special > interest groups. > > *Role and Structure of the MAG* > > With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will > be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > € One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out > this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision making processes to make them more effective. These are > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. Suggest we add "a MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or fulfilment of the WSIS mandate. > € It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > € We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has > any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. > For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' > etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the > IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN > Secretary General. > € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We > suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would > also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and > prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum > beyond 2010. > € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out > for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is > also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. > While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of > the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources > needed to perform its role effectively. > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF > annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > *Special Advisors and Chair* > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should > be kept within a reasonable limit. > We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature > of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN > Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy > chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues > for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the > division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the > present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested > new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the > Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative > has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now > about the post-Hyderabad phase. > And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present > Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend > the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through > difficult formative times > All good from my point of view. But I do suggest this section is overly long and some of the less relevant paragraphs at this stage (I have suggested a few) be cut. > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > 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 need 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. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be > assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its > functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To > this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets > involved in the IGF's management. YES here > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? Suggest we add "We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of > the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more > active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, > but not limited to, remote participation remote, including transcription > and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: > > > > ³In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular > attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of > society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* > *We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons > with disabilities.² We include for example, Indigenous peoples > worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those > who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those > concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance > structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative > modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and > activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support > of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in > 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. > For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the > "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated > face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF > should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and > engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and > for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the > work done elsewhere. > > Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex > decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with > few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular > sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options > make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should > be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites > should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is > competitive and convenient. > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term > and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and > policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using > its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some > regions and to help others to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these > years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of > multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regionalŠ level". This > should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the > annual IGF meeting. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the > past various such innovations have been considered - including speed > dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always > the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the > reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be > palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a > whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the > international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of > non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. NO I don't agree with the last sentence and believe it should be removed. Binding statements will reduce effective discussion to delegations producing monologues and lowest common denominator inputs. If everyone else agrees leave it in, but previously many of us have expressed reservations about proceeding in this direction > > [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by > Ginger, not yet seen by Shiva] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation.^ > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant > segments and geographic regions. We mention in for example: Indigenous > peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and > particularly those who are the poorest of > the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting > peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of > broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities need > to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of > various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve > attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF > already has made some funds available for representation from Less > Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in > the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible > and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is > already being spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel > support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small > proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and > the diversity of participation could be significantly improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the > IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from > business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel > grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), > full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with > special attention to participants from unrepresented categories > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant > segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there > is an individual need). > I know this section is still being discussed so I wont comment yet. > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ > stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jul 14 00:15:58 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:15:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> References: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1C366EC1-CEA1-4A06-83A4-CC899F512638@ciroap.org> On 14/07/2009, at 6:32 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > Please read this draft carefully. As far as I know, we are only > missing consensus on Shiva's portion of Q6, and the update (from > Fouad) on Q4. Is that correct? Please opine. I hope this doesn't come too late. None of these comments need block consensus if they are contentious (I hope they are not - none of them are substantive changes). > It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at > least three areas > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point > of view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step > because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different > governance and policy models than exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many > newer participants, especially from developing countries with under- > developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi- > stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional > initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal > way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss > public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance > in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > stability and development of the Internet. This last paragraph seems out of place here. I would suggest moving it up to 1 and prefacing it with "This is in fulfilment of paragraph 72(a) of the Tunis Agenda, which asks...". > “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular > attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable > groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons > and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and > nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older > persons and persons with disabilities.” We include for example, > Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people > and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often > landless or migrants, Given that examples of the marginalised and vulnerable groups have already been given, it would make more sense to change the words "for example" to "in particular" or "also". Further, we should remove the second instance of "persons with disabilities". > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present > IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also > true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include > more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society > causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all > participant segments and geographic regions. We mention in for > example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, > rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of > the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting peer- > to-peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic > platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance > as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad- > based economic and social development. This is all repeated from earlier in the submission. We should therefore delete from "We mention in for example". -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jul 14 00:24:44 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:24:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <140638DF-7CE4-48EB-9F23-FCD2AA85A0A4@ciroap.org> On 14/07/2009, at 12:01 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Although it may be >> palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF >> as a >> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > NO I don't agree with the last sentence and believe it should be > removed. > Binding statements will reduce effective discussion to delegations > producing > monologues and lowest common denominator inputs. If everyone else > agrees > leave it in, but previously many of us have expressed reservations > about > proceeding in this direction Ian, how do you interpret "non-binding" to mean "binding"? -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 14 01:04:04 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:34:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5C11C4.1000808@itforchange.net> After the discussion and agreement between Bill and me, we can add the second set of substantive principles where we mention WSIS principles. Instead of "The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.²" we say The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.² As per WSIS principles IG'"should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism" (and continue with the current text from here) parminder Ian Peter wrote: > This is really starting to take shape! A few comments below. > > > > On 14/07/09 8:32 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > > >> Hi everyone, >> Please read this draft carefully. As far as I know, we are only missing >> consensus on Shiva's portion of Q6, and the update (from Fouad) on Q4. >> Is that correct? Please opine. >> >> Please send your comments as soon as possible, as we should reach >> consensus and do a final edit tomorrow. I will be traveling on >> Wednesday and will be offline from 3 a.m. (7:30 GMT) to 3 p.m. (19:30 >> GMT) so I would really like to finish this tomorrow if possible to make >> sure we post within the deadline. >> >> Thanks. Ginger >> >> >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis >> >> Agenda? >> >> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically >> set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are >> contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, >> and specifically about public policy-making in this area. >> >> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its >> way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on >> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary >> innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up >> the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF >> take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on >> them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real >> policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged from >> how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If >> this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF >> is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It >> needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable >> 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most >> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >> processes of real policy making. >> >> In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area >> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >> organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 >> c). >> >> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its >> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing >> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the >> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying >> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. >> >> It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at >> least three areas >> >> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of >> view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it >> is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >> policy models than exclusively statist ones. >> >> 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed >> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >> >> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >> interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional >> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). >> >> >> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to >> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >> development of the Internet. >> >> > > I am happy with this text and would support it in its current form or with > minor changes. > > >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >> organizations.² Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS >> process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and >> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in >> Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any >> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. >> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s >> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as >> a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >> >> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a >> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >> building block for such an effort. >> >> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet >> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. >> >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize >> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of >> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >> It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the >> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> > > Again, I am happy with this text > >> >> >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >> acted as a catalyst for change? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of >> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during >> WSIS, and less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals, due to the >> request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are panels that >> include business, government, academia and civil society working >> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >> >> The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is >> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on >> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or >> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in >> turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder groups. >> One might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in >> IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your >> involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted >> in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder >> process changed or affected your perspective on any particular >> governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the IGF. >> >> The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other >> international policy process and governments perceive civil society >> participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory phase >> as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >> opportunity to experience the mutlistakholder participatory process of >> the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. >> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF >> process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory >> governance process and this will have other widespread impact. >> >> > > Good! Happy here as well > >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? [Fouad Basra is working on >> this as it needs to be completely updated] >> >> At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the >> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus would like >> to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full term >> "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official >> purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of >> the IGF. >> >> MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to >> making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the >> new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We are >> of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open and the >> other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally >> discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand >> that there can be some circumstances that require closed discussions. >> All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed, and summaries >> of them provided, as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should >> be provided for all face-to-face meetings of the MAG, unless some topics >> are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case such >> topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided, as >> appropriate. >> > > Do we need this paragraph? I am not sure the two e-lists suggestion is all > that useful in achieving transparency and openness. Suggest some of this can > be edited out ?Is this the section Fouad is working on? > >> *Membership of the MAG* >> >> EUR The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required >> balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so >> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present >> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >> third of MAG members should be rotated every year. >> EUR In the interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities >> of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we request the >> Secretary General to explain which interested group that person is >> associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly >> established, and made open along with due justifications. >> > > Not sure this paragraph is necessary or that I agree with it. Direct > stakeholder representation isnt always effective. > > >> EUR Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder >> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be >> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among >> all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary >> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> > > YES > > >> EUR We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards should >> continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >> > > YES > > >> EUR Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate >> processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that >> it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given >> set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular >> stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially >> in the case of civil society and business sectors, and provides scope >> for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, >> however, should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations >> from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept >> to the minimum. >> > > This wont happen so I don't know why we should bother to ask for it. Its > important that the overall MAG have geographic and gender balance and that > cant be achieved if each sector chooses its own slate. > > > >> EUR When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special >> interest groups. >> >> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >> >> With the experience of two years of the IGF, it is also the right time >> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >> EUR One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the >> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >> decision making processes to make them more effective. These are >> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. >> > > Suggest we add "a MAG that is little more than a program committee will not > effectively advance the cause of internet governance or fulfilment of the > WSIS mandate. > > >> EUR It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups >> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >> EUR We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has >> any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. >> For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires >> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' >> etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the >> IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN >> Secretary General. >> EUR MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >> plans for the year ahead. We >> suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would >> also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and >> prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum >> beyond 2010. >> EUR IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out >> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >> Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation >> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >> fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of >> the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources >> needed to perform its role effectively. >> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >> of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF >> annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. >> >> *Special Advisors and Chair* >> >> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >> mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for >> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should >> be kept within a reasonable limit. >> We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature >> of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN >> Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy >> chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding logistical issues >> for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the >> division of work and responsibility between the two chairs in the >> present arrangement? It may be too late to move over to the suggested >> new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country deputy chair, for the >> Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative >> has already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now >> about the post-Hyderabad phase. >> And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present >> Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend >> the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through >> difficult formative times >> >> > > All good from my point of view. But I do suggest this section is overly long > and some of the less relevant paragraphs at this stage (I have suggested a > few) be cut. > >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> 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 need 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. >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more >> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet >> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more >> participative and democratic. >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last >> few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be >> assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its >> functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To >> this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets >> involved in the IGF's management. >> > > YES here > >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> > > Suggest we add "We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In > addition, we submit: > > >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the >> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive >> participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of >> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more >> active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, >> but not limited to, remote participation remote, including transcription >> and archiving. >> >> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: >> >> >> >> ³In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular >> attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of >> society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* >> *We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons >> with disabilities.² We include for example, Indigenous peoples >> worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those >> who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those >> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance >> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative >> modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support >> of broad based economic and social development. >> >> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of >> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in >> 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. >> For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the >> "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated >> face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF >> should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance >> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and >> engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and >> for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the >> work done elsewhere. >> >> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex >> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more >> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with >> few resources. Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular >> sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options >> make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should >> be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites >> should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and >> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is >> competitive and convenient. >> >> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term >> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and >> policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using >> its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some >> regions and to help others to start. >> >> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >> support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >> in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these >> years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of >> multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regionalS( level". This >> should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the >> annual IGF meeting. >> >> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the >> past various such innovations have been considered - including speed >> dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always >> the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the >> reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be >> palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a >> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >> > > NO I don't agree with the last sentence and believe it should be removed. > Binding statements will reduce effective discussion to delegations producing > monologues and lowest common denominator inputs. If everyone else agrees > leave it in, but previously many of us have expressed reservations about > proceeding in this direction > > >> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by >> Ginger, not yet seen by Shiva] >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >> diversity of participation.^ >> >> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF >> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly >> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true >> that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more >> Civil Society participants known for their commitment and >> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. >> And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant >> segments and geographic regions. We mention in for example: Indigenous >> peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and >> particularly those who are the poorest of >> the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting >> peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an >> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet >> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and >> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in >> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of >> broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities need >> to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of >> various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve >> attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF >> already has made some funds available for representation from Less >> Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to >> the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and >> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual >> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in >> the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible >> and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is >> already being spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel >> support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small >> proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and >> the diversity of participation could be significantly improved. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the >> IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from >> business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international >> organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel >> grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), >> full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with >> special attention to participants from unrepresented categories >> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there >> is an individual need). >> >> > I know this section is still being discussed so I wont comment yet. > >> >> >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ >> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 14 01:08:15 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:38:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <1C366EC1-CEA1-4A06-83A4-CC899F512638@ciroap.org> References: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> <1C366EC1-CEA1-4A06-83A4-CC899F512638@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4A5C12BF.9090301@itforchange.net> >> >> >> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss >> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance >> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >> stability and development of the Internet. > > This last paragraph seems out of place here. I would suggest moving > it up to 1 and prefacing it with "This is in fulfilment of paragraph > 72(a) of the Tunis Agenda, which asks...". > I agree that this para is not needed. Seems a vestige from a mix of different drafts. It can simply be removed. The draft is long and any cut down on non-essentials is immensely useful. They all know the language of para 72. 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jul 14 02:08:13 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:08:13 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <140638DF-7CE4-48EB-9F23-FCD2AA85A0A4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Sorry - in my rush I misread. If everybody is happy with non-binding I have no objections On 14/07/09 2:24 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > On 14/07/2009, at 12:01 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>> Although it may be >>> palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF >>> as a >>> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >>> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >>> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >> >> NO I don't agree with the last sentence and believe it should be >> removed. >> Binding statements will reduce effective discussion to delegations >> producing >> monologues and lowest common denominator inputs. If everyone else >> agrees >> leave it in, but previously many of us have expressed reservations >> about >> proceeding in this direction > > > > Ian, how do you interpret "non-binding" to mean "binding"? ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 14 02:11:31 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:41:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> References: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5C2193.2030607@itforchange.net> a few comments below, interspersed. Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > Please read this draft carefully. As far as I know, we are only > missing consensus on Shiva's portion of Q6, and the update (from > Fouad) on Q4. Is that correct? Please opine. > > Please send your comments as soon as possible, as we should reach > consensus and do a final edit tomorrow. I will be traveling on > Wednesday and will be offline from 3 a.m. (7:30 GMT) to 3 p.m. (19:30 > GMT) so I would really like to finish this tomorrow if possible to > make sure we post within the deadline. > > Thanks. Ginger > > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis > > Agenda? > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary > innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up > the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the > IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy > dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping > processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success > will be judged from how much it managed to influence these real > policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of > success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its > mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue > structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy > dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) > strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. > > In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the > area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' > (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental > organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' > (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its > mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing > ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the > Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying > emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at > least three areas > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of > view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because > it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance > and policy models than exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with > under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for > multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional > initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order > to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the > WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote > and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. > The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s > statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added > as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards > a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance > - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet > the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to > emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in > Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals > to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in > keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and > relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? > Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level > of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is > observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than > during WSIS, and less confrontation. In the 2009 workshop proposals, > due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there > are panels that include business, government, academia and civil > society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. this has been true of even earlier IGFs. So just say 'In IGF workshop proposals' instead of 'in the 2009 workshop proposals' > > The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is > posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which > in turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. One might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? > "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that > has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any > particular governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the > IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other > international policy process and governments perceive civil society > participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory > phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an > opportunity to experience the mutlistakholder participatory process of > the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. > This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF > process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory > governance process and this will have other widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? [Fouad Basra is working on > this as it needs to be completely updated] > > At the outset of this statement on renewal and restructuring of the > Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, the Civil Society IG Caucus would > like to appeal to all stakeholders that we should all use the full > term "multi-stakeholder advisory group" or MAG, at least for official > purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect of > the IGF. cut out the above para. They have already acceded to our request and MAG is the term now used officially instead of AG as earlier. > > MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to > making IGF more effective and productive. We very much appreciate the > new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. We > are of the view that MAG should work through two e-lists - one open > and the other closed. Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, > normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny. However we do > understand that there can be some circumstances that require closed > discussions. All discussions taken to the closed list should be > listed, and summaries of them provided, as appropriate. By the same > rule, transcripts should be provided for all face-to-face meetings of > the MAG, unless some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a > closed manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary > of discussions provided, as appropriate. > > *Membership of the MAG* > > • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the > required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, > but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the > present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG > members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. > • In the interest of transparency and understanding the > responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG > we request the Secretary General to explain which interested group > that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG > should be clearly established, and made open along with due > justifications. > • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is > necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global > governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should > continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > • Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate > processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate > that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even > a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that > particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of > selection, especially in the case of civil society and business > sectors, and provides scope for the final selecting authority > exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should be done in a > completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection > processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum. > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, > special interest groups. > > *Role and Structure of the MAG* > > With the experience of two years of the IGF, this is old. now it is four years. > it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the > MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that > MAG is expected to perform. > • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying > out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further > improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG > must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. > These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more > than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its > mandate. > • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has > any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. > For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving > recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able > to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can > cohere in the UN Secretary General. > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We > suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would > also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and > prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum > beyond 2010. > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, > which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a > need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF > Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible > for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided > with resources needed to perform its role effectively. > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF > annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > *Special Advisors and Chair* > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > should be kept within a reasonable limit. the above is fine, but the para below should be removed. It is not relevant at this stage. There seems no threat of two chairs now, after Hyderabad did not follow the precedent set by Rio. > We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair, nominated by the UN > Secretary General. The host country should be able to nominate a > deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful regarding > logistical issues for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will > like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the > two chairs in the present arrangement? It may be too late to move over > to the suggested new arrangement of one chair, plus a host country > deputy chair, for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian > government representative has already taken over as the co-chair, but > we can take a decision now about the post-Hyderabad phase. > And lastly, the IG Caucus supports the continuation of the present > Chair, Nitin Desai, as the Chair of the MAG. We recognize and commend > the role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through > difficult formative times > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > 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 need 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. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review > of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster > more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices > through, but not limited to, remote participation remote, including > transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: > > > > “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular > attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups > of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and > refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and > nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older > persons and persons with disabilities.” We include for example, > Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people > and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often > landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and > open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and > those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the > Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and > social development. > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in > 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. > For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the > "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an > isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, > perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet > governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work > and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional > fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a > capstone for the work done elsewhere. > > Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex > decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with > few resources. thee above is fine, but there is a contradiction in sentence below. We know in less popular sites there is less competition and therefore higher ticket costs. the sentence below seem confused in this regard. > Accessible (perhaps even not urban) but less popular > sites should be chosen, where airline competition and routing options > make lower costs possible. City/country cost of hotels and food should > be taken into consideration as well. Final meeting dates and sites > should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is > competitive and convenient. > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term > and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and > policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world > using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing > in some regions and to help others to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these > years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of > multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This > should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the > annual IGF meeting. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce > more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In > the past various such innovations have been considered - including > speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but > always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due > to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may > be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF > as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to > the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production > of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by > Ginger, not yet seen by Shiva] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation.^ > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all > participant segments and geographic regions. We mention in for > example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural > people and particularly those who are the poorest of > the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting > peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities > and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of > broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities > need to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability > of various categories of travel grants for participants may help > improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. > The IGF already has made some funds available for representation from > Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. fine > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected > in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total > visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, > which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding > for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would > amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the > quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be > significantly improved. if we are reducing text this can be dispensed, though I have nothing against it. I cant see how the costs incurred by other entities (the real total cost) can be used as an rationale for IGF to increase the cost it directly incurs, though I do wholly agree that IGF should be directly incurring higher costs and supporting inclusinve participation. > > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that > the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from > business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel > grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), > full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with > special attention to participants from unrepresented categories > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant > segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there > is an individual need). > > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ > stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 07:37:13 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:07:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <4A5C2193.2030607@itforchange.net> References: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> <4A5C2193.2030607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5C6DE9.5020606@gmail.com> Thanks to everyone for the latest suggestions. I have added/deleted them below. If it is an addition I have used **to mark the addition**, if a deletion, I used four asterisks****. I tried to remember to include the [name] of the "editor" to make finding any changes easier. I believe I took every suggestion into account. Please review, and comment. If you have not yet made comments and would like to, please do so as soon as possible. Shiva, I will leave the "unconditional" thread open separately until we reach agreement on this, ok? Please do let us know your thoughts on this. I think we are reaching consensus on a final draft. If this is not true, please let me know. Thanks again for all of your work. Best, Ginger 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged from how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at least three areas 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models than exclusively statist ones. 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). [corrected the following, taking out “all talk, as requested by Parminder, put back the paras inadvertently left out] **Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including the IGF Remote Hubs. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” **As per WSIS principles IG “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism”.** Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than during WSIS, and less confrontation. **Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels.** [Removed reference to 2009 as per Parminder] The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder groups. One might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other international policy process and governments perceive civil society participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the mutlistakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? ****[Parminder] ****[Ian] *Membership of the MAG* • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. ****[Ian] • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. ****[Ian] • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. *Role and Structure of the MAG* With the experience of **four [Parminder]** years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfil all aspects of its mandate. **A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or fulfilment of the WSIS mandate.** • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. * Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. *Special Advisors and Chair* The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. ****[Ian] 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. 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 need 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 effectiveness vis-a-vis that role. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? **We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit:**[Ian] Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation remote, including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” We include **in particular**[Jeremy], Indigenous peoples worldwide, ****[Jeremy]rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources. **Accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well.**[Jeremy] Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is competitive and convenient. Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing in some regions and to help others to start. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the annual IGF meeting. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In the past various such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation.^ There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions,**as noted above.**[Jeremy] Funding possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be significantly improved. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need). 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 07:40:53 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:10:53 -0430 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: References: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5C6EC5.9070903@gmail.com> Hi Shiva... I simply have problems with "unconditional". I do understand your point, but I think it can be misinterpreted. I also think that it is understood that grants made through the UN or the IGF Secretariat cannot have any strings attached as to position. However, is there a different phrase or other word you can suggest to convey your meaning? Are there any other opinions on this? If I am the only one who objects to "unconditional", we can leave it in. Thanks. Best, Ginger Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Ginger, Hello All, > > Thanks for modifying this text, but what is wrong with the idea of > unconditionality? That part is excluded from the text ? > > IGC statements are sometimes? rushed out at the last moment, and in > the last minute rush as the deadline approaches, the time-constraint > justifies a more-than-necessary compromise, or the point is dropped > completely. > > I feel that it is signinficant to propose the clause of > unconditionality, perhaps for further debate at the MAG, and later in > the process of acting upon this point. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to > continue this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, > which is the following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF > programs and participation to further enhance the quality of > programs to foster greater diversity of participation. > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present > IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are > highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it > is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded > to include more Civil Society participants known for their > commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various > Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do > not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We > mention in for example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with > disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the > poorest of > the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting > peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of > Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners > and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource > in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding > possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts, > but availability of various categories of travel grants for > participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at > the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds > available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but > such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible > costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, > organizations and individual participants) would be several times > that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing > the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist > estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent each year. > With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker > and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the > true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the > diversity of participation could be significantly improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends > that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by > grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental > and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund > could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel > speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a > greater number of participants with special attention to > participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented > geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and > even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an > individual need). > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > As I said before, I support funding the participation of > people from least developed countries. I do think that the IGF > secretariat should have a reliable funding that ensure > independence from private sector donations. > > I don't support the funding of business leaders, business > class flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we > agree on this latter part, I suggested to omit such details. > jeanette > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Jeanette Hoffmann > > The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the > PRESENT realities and the statement stems from a positive > outlook unconstrained by the present situation. Another > million or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way > beyond the reach of the IGF body. > > 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF > will find a way to find funds to answer thiso call. > > 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to > keep the IGF in eternal poverty, > > I am looking at your later response and notice that I > would like it not mentioned what is funded. The statement > is complete only with such a suggestion and in its present > form, is there anything seriously objectionable with what > it says about enhancing the quality of programs with > greater diversity of participation? > > Thank you. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create > another California > as Michael G. suggests. > Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means > to support > people's participation. The issue is whether it makes > sense to call > upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a > significant amount of time on soliciting donations for > its own > functioning. > If we ask for money, we should specificy where this > money should > come from or how it could be generated. > jeanette > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is > not only > Jeanette who holds this view. > > Thanks, gp > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a > serious > effort at compromise. However, there are > still areas I > cannot agree with. Please consider the > following > counter-proposal, and of course, we hope > for comments > from others as well: > > [The following text was re-submitted by > Shiva, and then > edited by Ginger] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon > the IGF > Secretariat to substantially fund IGF > programs and > participation to further enhance the > quality of programs > with greater diversity of participation. > > > The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the > expenses > listed below. I don't understand why we would > want to "call > upon the IGF Secretariat to > > substantially fund IGF programs and > participation" in > light of the lack of such funds. > > jeanette > > > There are two aspects to be considered in > this regard: > a) Present IGF participants representing > various > stakeholder groups are highly qualified > individuals with > diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that IGF > participation needs to be further expanded > to include > more Civil Society participants known for their > commitment and accomplishments outside the > IGF arena on > various Civil Society causes. Business > leaders who are > otherwise committed to social and other > governance > issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all > governments > are represented at the IGF. And b) The > present attendees > of the IGF do not represent all participant > segments and > geographic regions. This needs to be > improved and it > requires various efforts, but availability > of various > categories of travel grants for > participants may help > improve participation by those not > attending the IGF for > want of funds. IGF already has made some > funds available > for representation from Less Developed > Countries, but > such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all > visible and > invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, > participating > Governments, organizations and individual > participants) > would be several times that of the actual > outflow from > the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, > as reflected > in the IGF book of accounts. If an > economist estimates > the total visible and invisible costs of > the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is already > spent. With > an increment in funding for travel support > to panel > speaker and participants, which would > amount to a small > proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the > quality of > panels and the diversity of participation > could be improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet > Governance Caucus > recommends that the IGF should consider > budgetary > allocations supported by grants from business, > governments, well funded non-governmental and > international organizations and the United > Nations. The > fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead > participants > (panel speakers, program organizers), full > and partial > fellowships to a greater number of > participants with > special attention to participants from > unrepresented > categories (unrepresented geographic > regions and/or > unrepresented participant segments and even > to those > from affluent, represented regions if there > is an > individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring > in more > diverse opinions to the IGF from experts > who would add > further value to the IGF. It is especially > recommended > that such a fund carry no link as to the > positions or > content proposed by the presenter (as > opposed to a grant > from a business trust with stated or > implied conditions > about the positions to be taken). It is > recommended that > the IGF create a fund large enough to have > significant > impact in further enhancing quality and > diversity of > participation. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, > > Have revised the statement and the > changes made are > highlighted. This mail is best viewed > with html / > mime settings. ( for the convenience of > those whose > mail settings are plain text, I am > attaching the > text as a PDF file which would show the > highlighted > changes ) > > Thank you > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls > upon the IGF > Secretariat to > fund the IGF programs and participation > substantially and > significantly to further enhance the > quality of > programs with > greater diversity of participation. > * *There are > two aspects to be > considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ > present IGF > participants > representing various stakeholder > groups are > highly qualified > individuals with diverse > accomplishments but it > is also true that > IGF participation needs to be > further expanded to > invite and > include more Civil Society > participants known for > their commitment > and accomplishments outside the IGF > arena on > various Civil Society > causes ; business leaders who are > otherwise > committed to social > and other governance issues are not > seen at the > IGF, and not all > governments are represented at the > IGF ( and > though not for > financial reasons, the present > participants from > Government are > not represented on a high enough > level ) - [ this > sentence in > parenthesis may be deleted if > unnecessary as it > is not directly > relevant to the point ] and b) The > present > participants of the IGF > do not represent all participant > segments and > geographic regions. > This needs to be improved and it > requires various > efforts, but > availability of various categories > of Travel > Grants for different > classes of participants may help improve > participation by those > not attending the IGF for want of > funds. IGF > already has made some > funds available for representation > from Less > Developed Countries, > but such funding achieves a limited > objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including > all visible > and invisible > costs to the IGF Secretariat, > participating > Governments, > organizations and individual > participants) would > be several times > that of the actual outflow from the IGF > Secretariat in organizing > the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of > accounts. If an economist > estimates the total visible and > invisible costs > of the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is > already spent. > For want of a > marginal allocation for travel > support to panel > speaker and > participants, which would amount to > a small > proportion of the true > cost of the IGF, the quality of > panels and the > diversity of > participation are compromised. > > With this rationale, the Internet > Governance > Caucus recommends > that the IGF should consider liberal > budgetary > allocations > supported by unconditional grants > from business, > governments, well > funded non-governmental and > international > organizations and the > United Nations. The fund may extend > uncompromising, comfortable > travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead > participants (panel > speakers, program organizers, who > are largely > invitees who are > required to be well-received for > participation), > full and partial > fellowships to a large number of > participants > with special > attention to participants from > unrepresented > categories > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or > unrepresented participant > segments and even to those from > affluent, > represented regions if > there is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to > bring in > really diverse > opinions to the IGF from experts who > would add > further value to > the IGF. It is especially > recommended that such a > fund may be > built up from contributions that are > unconditional (as opposed to > a grant from a business trust with > stated or > implied conditions > about the positions to be taken; > 'unconditional' > does not imply > that funds may have to be disbursed > without even > the basic > conditions that the recipient should > attend the > IGF and attend the > sessions etc. In this context > "unconditional" > means something > larger. It is to hint at a system of > Travel > Grants whereby IGF > will pool funds from Business > Corporations, > Governments, > International Organizations, well > funded NGOs and > UN with no > implied conditions on the positions > to be taken > by participants*)* > and may be awarded to panelists and > participants > unconditionally. > It is recommended that the IGF > create a fund > large enough to have > significant impact in further > enhancing quality > and diversity of > participation. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, > Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy > > > > >>> wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > Will have just a little time to > spend on this, > will review the > complete questionnaire comments, and > reword the > Q6 comment, but > don't really have a lot of time > today. Leaving > for the city in a > few hours for a short trip, will > find some time > to work tomorrow > as well, but not tonight. > > Would prefer this as an IGC > statement, rather > than as an > independent proposal, which I could > have sent it > on my own but > preferred not to. > > Shiva. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, > Ginger Paque > > > > >>> wrote: > > Hi Shiva, > > I was referring to Q6, as > several of us - > including myself, > and Ian, as well as Michael and > others, are > not yet satisfied > with the wording on the funding > concept. You > are welcome to > continue the discussion and see > if you can > reach a consensus > on it, but I suspect that by the > time > everyone is happy, the > statement won't say much of > anything. Could > you review the > thread on Q6, including Ian's > answer to the > complete > questionnaire draft, and tell us > what you think? > > Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > > Thanks. I appreciate your > willingness to discuss. > > Best, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > You would like this > submitted as my own > comment, rather > than as an IGC statement? Is > this only on > Q6 or does it > also apply to Q3? > > There were further exchanges > between > Gurstein and me, and > the misunderstanding are > being clarified. > Would you really > feel that the entire > statement has to be > dropped as > comment from IGC? > > Thanks. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 > PM, Ginger Paque > > > > >> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > Shiva, As there seems to > be quite a > bit of controversy > about this > concept and wording, and > we are very > short on time, I > wonder if we > could continue this > discussion after > the questionnaire is > submitted, perhaps for > comments to be > submitted by the > August > deadline? > > In the meantime, you > could submit your > own comment, > which would > give you more freedom to > make your > point. Is that > acceptable to you? > > Regards, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: > > Hello Michael Gurstein > > A quick reply and a > little more later. > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 > at 6:12 AM, > Michael Gurstein > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > Hi, > > -----Original > Message----- > *From:* > Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy > > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>] > *Sent:* > Sunday, July 12, > 2009 6:18 PM > *To:* > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>>>; Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* Re: > [governance] > Question 6: > Comments on Siva's > proposed paras > > Hello Michael > Gurstein, > > On Mon, Jul > 13, 2009 at > 2:50 AM, Michael > Gurstein > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > "The Internet > Governance Caucus calls > upon the IGF > > Secretariat to fund the > IGF programs and > participation > > substantially and > significantly to > further enhance the > quality of > programs > with greater > diversity of > > participation" sounds > better? > YES... > Thanks. > > > > There are > two aspects > to be considered > in this > regard: a) > The absence or > > non-participation of > some of the world's > most renowned > Civil > Society opinion > leaders is > noticeable; > Business Leaders > who are > otherwise > committed to > social and > other > governance issues off > IGF are not > seen at > the IGF; > > Governments are not > represented on a > level high enough > > HMMM. > WHO/WHAT EXACTLY > IS MEANT BY > "RENOWNED CIVIL > SOCIETY > OPINION > LEADERS" > (IN SOME > CIRCLES THERE > ARE AT LEAST TWO AND > PROBABLY MORE > INTERNAL > > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT > SIMPLE STATEMENT > AND CERTAINLY > NEITHER WE > NOR THE > > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE > EXPECTED TO > IDENTIFY WHO THESE > "RENOWNED" > FOLKS MIGHT > BE. > > AS WELL, > ARE WE LOOKING > FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > FOLKS FROM > CIVIL > SOCIETY > ORGANIZATIONS > IN LEADERSHIP > POSITIONS, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING > FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY > SPOKESPEOPLE > WHO UNDERSTAND IG > ISSUES, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING > FOR LEADERS > OF RESPONSIBLE > REPRESENTATIVE CS > ORGANIZATIONS WHO > HAVE A > > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES > (EACH OF THESE > CATEGORIES IS > PROBABLY > DISCREET AND > COULD BE INCLUDED > AMBIGUOUSLY > UNDER > YOUR > STATEMENT. > > IF BIZ > LEADERS THINK IT > IS OF SUFFICIENT > IMPORTANCE > THEY'LL > LIKELY COME, IF > NOT, NOT > AND NOT MUCH > WE OR THE > SECRETARIAT CAN DO > ABOUT > THAT AND > SIMILARLY > WITH > GOVERNMENTS. > > I THINK > THIS PARA > SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > I am sorry, I > don't agree > with your negative > interpretation of > such a > positive suggestion. > Are we to assert > that the > present > participants > constitute a > complete, > representative, and > ultimate group > ? NO, BUT > I'M HAVING > TROUBLE SEEING WHAT > NAOMI KLEIN OR > VENDANA > SHIVA WOULD > HAVE TO > CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > I will have to browse > a little to > learn about Naomi > Klein; > Vendana Shiva is an > Indian name > that sounds > familiar, but I > wasn't thinking of > these names, > nor was my point > intended to > bring in anyone whom > I know or > associated with. > Looks like > you are reading > between the lines > of what I write. > > HAVING > THE HEAD OF > SEWA OR K-NET > WOULD SEEM TO > ME TO BE RATHER > MORE USEFUL, > "RENOWNED" OR > NOT, AS THEY AT > LEAST COULD TALK > WITH SOME > DIRECT KNOWLEDGE > ABOUT HOW IG > ISSUES IMPACT > THEM AND > THE KINDS OF > THINGS THEY > ARE TRYING TO DO ON > THE GROUND. > > Again an Indian > reference - you > have used the word > "Sewa" in > your comment. Perhaps > you are > reading me as someone > pushing > the Indian point of > view? I am > not. I am born in > India, a > participant from > India, I have > faith in and respect > for my > country but I believe > that in an > International > context I am at > least a little wider > than a > national. I have been > inspired by > teachers who taught > me in my > school days that > "patriotism is a > prejudice" which is > profound > thinking which in > depths implies > that one must be > beyond being > patriotic and be > rather global. > > (Will come back this > point and > write more in > response to what > you have written a > little later) > > Thank you. > Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy. > > > MBG > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > M > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 14 08:24:39 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:54:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <4A5C6DE9.5020606@gmail.com> References: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> <4A5C2193.2030607@itforchange.net> <4A5C6DE9.5020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5C7907.6020005@itforchange.net> As taken from an already statement the following is dated " Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured." just replace it with Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. (continue with the existing text from here ... Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.) parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks to everyone for the latest suggestions. I have added/deleted > them below. If it is an addition I have used **to mark the addition**, > if a deletion, I used four asterisks****. I tried to remember to > include the [name] of the "editor" to make finding any changes easier. > > I believe I took every suggestion into account. Please review, and > comment. If you have not yet made comments and would like to, please > do so as soon as possible. Shiva, I will leave the "unconditional" > thread open separately until we reach agreement on this, ok? > > Please do let us know your thoughts on this. I think we are reaching > consensus on a final draft. If this is not true, please let me know. > > Thanks again for all of your work. > > Best, Ginger > > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis > > Agenda? > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary > innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up > the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the > IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy > dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping > processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success > will be judged from how much it managed to influence these real > policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of > success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its > mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue > structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy > dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) > strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. > > In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the > area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' > (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental > organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' > (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its > mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing > ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the > Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying > emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at > least three areas > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of > view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because > it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance > and policy models than exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with > under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for > multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional > initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > > > [corrected the following, taking out “all talk, as requested by > Parminder, put back the paras inadvertently left out] > **Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss > public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in > order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability > and development of the Internet. > > > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so > that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all > actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which > have not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is > heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are > already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and > seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, > including the IGF Remote Hubs. Since the fear of governmental > domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use > global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate > multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again > offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** > > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” **As per WSIS principles IG “should ensure an > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and > ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into > account multilingualism”.** Governments invoked these principles > throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF > to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF > has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key > element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has > consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence > welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the > WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core > of all IGF discussions. > > > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards > a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance > - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > > > A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet > the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to > emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in > Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals > to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in > keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and > relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? > Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level > of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is > observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than > during WSIS, and less confrontation. **Due to the request by the IGF > Secretariat to merge proposals, there are workshops and panels that > include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels.** [Removed reference > to 2009 as per Parminder] > > > > The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is > posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which > in turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. One might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? > "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that > has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any > particular governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the > IGF. > > > > The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other > international policy process and governments perceive civil society > participation in the policy making process. During the preparatory > phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an > opportunity to experience the mutlistakholder participatory process of > the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. > This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF > process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory > governance process and this will have other widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > ****[Parminder] > > ****[Ian] > > *Membership of the MAG* > > • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the > required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, > but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the > present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG > members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. > ****[Ian] > • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is > necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global > governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should > continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > ****[Ian] > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, > special interest groups. > > *Role and Structure of the MAG* > > With the experience of **four [Parminder]** years of the IGF, it is > also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. > To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is > expected to perform. > > • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying > out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further > improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG > must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. > These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more > than what it is today, to enable it to fulfil all aspects of its > mandate. **A MAG that is little more than a program committee will > not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or fulfilment > of the WSIS mandate.** > > • It will be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has > any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. > For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving > recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able > to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can > cohere in the UN Secretary General. > > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We > > suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would > also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and > prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum > beyond 2010. > > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, > which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a > need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > * > > Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* > > > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF > Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible > for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided > with resources needed to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF > annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > *Special Advisors and Chair* > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > should be kept within a reasonable limit. > ****[Ian] > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > 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 need 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 effectiveness vis-a-vis that role. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > > > **We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In > > addition, we submit:**[Ian] > > > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with > near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the > review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive > participation. More importantly, the energy not needed in a review > of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster > more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices > through, but not limited to, remote participation remote, including > transcription and archiving. > > > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: > > > > “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular > attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups > of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and > refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and > nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older > persons and persons with disabilities.” We include **in > particular**[Jeremy], Indigenous peoples worldwide, ****[Jeremy]rural > people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and > often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to > peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic > platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as > ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad > based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in > 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. > For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the > "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an > isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, > perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet > governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work > and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional > fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a > capstone for the work done elsewhere. > > Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex > decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with > few resources. **Accessibility, airline competition and routing > options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into > consideration as well.**[Jeremy] Final meeting dates and sites should > be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is > competitive and convenient. > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term > and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and > policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, > using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing > in some regions and to help others to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these > years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of > multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This > should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the > annual IGF meeting. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce > more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In > the past various such innovations have been considered - including > speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but > always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due > to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may > be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF > as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to > the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production > of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation.^ > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all > participant segments and geographic regions,**as noted > above.**[Jeremy] Funding possibilities need to be improved and it > requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of > travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those > not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made > some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, > but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected > in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total > visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, > which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding > for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would > amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the > quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be > significantly improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that > the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from > business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel > grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), > full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with > special attention to participants from unrepresented categories > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant > segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there > is an individual need). > > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ > stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 08:34:48 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:04:48 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <4A5C7907.6020005@itforchange.net> References: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> <4A5C2193.2030607@itforchange.net> <4A5C6DE9.5020606@gmail.com> <4A5C7907.6020005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5C7B68.9050100@gmail.com> Done. Thanks. gp Parminder wrote: > As taken from an already statement the following is dated > > " Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > among all stakeholders assured." > > just replace it with > > Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the > multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be > remedied. (continue with the existing text from here ... Fair civil > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > experiment in global governance.) > > parminder > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Thanks to everyone for the latest suggestions. I have added/deleted >> them below. If it is an addition I have used **to mark the >> addition**, if a deletion, I used four asterisks****. I tried to >> remember to include the [name] of the "editor" to make finding any >> changes easier. >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 14 09:48:48 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] illegal file sharing declines in UK among teens Message-ID: <228031.87734.qm@web58906.mail.re1.yahoo.com> There have been some reports (predominately) in the UK press that show illegal file sharing among teenagers in the UK is on the decline. Following a discussion on this list a while ago blaming all the ills on the music industry and there was no hope, I guess one can only conclude that the old fogeys on this list don't understand what teenagers are doing. Reports in the press on the survey are available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/12/music-industry-illegal-downloading-streaming http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/07/report-more-uk-users-going-the-legal-route-for-music.ars http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=119041. Assuming this survey is not a one-off and the trend continues, it shows what many believe - that give people credible alternatives and many will take up the legal file sharing option. Cheers David --------- David Goldstein email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au web: http://davidgoldstein.tel/ http://goldsteinreport.com/ phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home mail: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Jul 14 10:02:04 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:02:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <4A5C6DE9.5020606@gmail.com> References: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> <4A5C2193.2030607@itforchange.net> <4A5C6DE9.5020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <981D02DF-A3E1-4D4F-84D0-81B208F154FF@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Jul 14, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > I believe I took every suggestion into account. The right step a), but shouldn't we do a step b) and try and winnow it down? It's currently eight pages, and some of the responses go into a good deal of detail on points advocated by individual drafters that haven't elicited much group discussion. > > Please do let us know your thoughts on this. I think we are reaching > consensus on a final draft. If this is not true, please let me know. We need to do a consensus call on a final text to judge that, no? Unfortunately I'm rushing today and can't help word smith, but there's a number of bits of awkward phraseology (starting with the first sentence) and a need for copyediting. That aside, just few quick observations: > > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it > in the Tunis > > Agenda? > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is > specifically set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to > its creation are contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with > Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in > this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on > its way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder > dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep > up evolutionary innovations that each successive IGF meeting has > tried out. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it > is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues > and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a > dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. > Overall, IGF's success will be judged from how much it managed to > influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as > the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving > towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to > continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective > and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent > resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes > of real policy making. > > In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the > area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with > different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the > Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter- > governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under > their purview' (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling > its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in > proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section > 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, > making recommendations'. > > It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at > least three areas > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point > of view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step > because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different > governance and policy models than exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many > newer participants, especially from developing countries with under- > developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi- > stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional > initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal > way). I'd say inspiring > > > [corrected the following, taking out “all talk, as requested by > Parminder, put back the paras inadvertently left out] > **Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss > public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance > in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > stability and development of the Internet. > > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take > place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of > workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this > discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is > indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs > to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate > and include all actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion > and others, which have not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It > is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes > are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such > processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these > initiatives, including the IGF Remote Hubs. Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, > IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. > IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** > > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should > be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full > involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and > international organizations.” **As per WSIS principles IG “should > ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for > all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, > taking into account multilingualism”.** Governments invoked these > principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda > mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the > embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” > Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how > to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance > Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this > arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross- > cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. second line needs an edit, e.g. they also state that iG should... > > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion > of those principles within IG processes be established, per the > Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative > "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet > governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus > Convention" as a building block for such an effort. > > > A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. > Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to > emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in > Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of > individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. > This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion > of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. I remain of the view that this bit on rights would be better positioned as a stand alone issue in section 7. On the one hand, that the principles are intrinsically all about rights is a contention of some, not a globally shared interpretation of all. One of course could make the argument that there's a right to information that equates to transparency, a right to participation, a right to names in one's language, etc...but this hasn't been debated and agreed in IGF or elsewhere. Insisting that all the WSIS principles must be seen as a matter of rights could scare off some parties before the fact and make it hard to persuade them to engage seriously on the issues. And on the other hand, by conflating the two the rights agenda seemingly becomes all about the WSIS principles rather than a broader approach to the range of IG issues. I wouldn't have thought that's what rights advocates want. Anyway, Parminder and I have both expressed views on this, it'd be good to hear from others too. > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/ > government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the > level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It > is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase > than during WSIS, and less confrontation. **Due to the request by > the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are workshops and > panels that include business, government, academia and civil society > working together and exchanging ideas on various levels.** [Removed > reference to 2009 as per Parminder] > > > The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is > posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF > which in turn gets shared with and influences the respective > stakeholder groups. One might also ask different questions such as > "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet > governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with > other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your > participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected > your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand > additional impact of the IGF. > > > The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other > international policy process and governments perceive civil society > participation in the policy making process. This seems a rather bald statement. Are we assuming for it's changed it for the better? Think China and Saudi Arabia feel that way? I'd decenter CS and say its improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions etc > During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, > governments have had an opportunity to experience It is fair to say not all have been overjoyed by this opportunity > the mutlistakholder participatory process of the IGF and are > becoming comfortable with the process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance > process and this will have other widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out > for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory > Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > ****[Parminder] > > ****[Ian] > > *Membership of the MAG* > > • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the > required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, > but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the > present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG > members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. Do we need to say this, that's the deal now > ****[Ian] > • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be > corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members > among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is > necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global > governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in > Internet administration and the development of Internet-related > technical standards should > continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > ****[Ian] > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should > ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where > applicable, special interest groups. > > *Role and Structure of the MAG* > > With the experience of **four [Parminder]** years of the IGF, it is > also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the > MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that > MAG is expected to perform. > > • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for > the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with > carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion > that MAG must review its decision making processes to make them more > effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into > something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfil all > aspects of its mandate. **A MAG that is little more than a program > committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet > governance or fulfilment of the WSIS mandate.** > > • It will would > be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). > These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG > has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary > General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which > requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving > recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be > able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these > tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General. I do not support this and would like to hear whether others do. > > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report > should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against > relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and > also outline plans for the year ahead. We > > suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, > would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis > Agenda and prepare for discussion about the desirability of > continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, > which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such > a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > * > > Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* > > > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of > a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We > express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF > Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been > responsible for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should > be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the > participation of people from developing and least developed > countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations. > > *Special Advisors and Chair* > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria > for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of > diversity, as mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be > kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of > Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. > ****[Ian] > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > 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 need to be strengthened. this seems a very selective reading of the mandate. I'd say something like two key elements of the mandate are... > > 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 effectiveness vis-a-vis that role. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the > more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring > it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can > be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF > should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to > carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public > interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN > organization gets involved in the IGF's management. Repetitious? > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what > improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, > functioning and processes? > > > **We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In > > addition, we submit:**[Ian] > > > > Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near- > unanimous response that it should continue, Are we simply waving away the opposition of China, various ME governments, etc? Not sure that's a clever thing for CS to do. > we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of > more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not > needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the > search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and > developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote > participation remote, including transcription and archiving. > > > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: > > > “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular > attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable > groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons > and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and > nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older > persons and persons with disabilities.” We include **in > particular**[Jeremy], Indigenous peoples worldwide, > ****[Jeremy]rural people and particularly those who are the poorest > of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with > promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built > on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of > Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners > and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in > support of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of > structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable > in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental > summit. For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate > for the "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as > an isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, > perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet > governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most > work and engagement takes place between meetings in online and > regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more > of a capstone for the work done elsewhere. I don't understand the interplay of these two paragraphs. Are we saying that if more meetings are held in different regions (still far flung, depending on where you are), displaced persons and refugees, minorities and nomadic people, etc. will come debate IPV6, core resources, etc? > > > Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex > decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should > more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations > with few resources. > **Accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/ > country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration > as well.** Means meetings should be held in relatively cheap cities that are major airline hubs? > [Jeremy] Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days > in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is > competitive and convenient. > > Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its > term and the need to spread and improve the resulting information > and policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the > world, using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already > existing in some regions and to help others to start. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and > the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the > implementation, in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions > raised during these years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation > for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, > regional… level". This should be complemented by more formal support > for Remote Hubs to the annual IGF meeting. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce > more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. > In the past various such innovations have been considered - > including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable > discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from going through > with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder > representatives. Although it may be palatable to all - change never > is - the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the > long term it does not prove its value to the international community > by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements > on Internet public policy issues. Over the years many IGC members have argued against this but are not participating in this discussion now. Are we going to go ahead and say this on the "you snooze, you lose" principle? I certainly do not support the proposition that the IGF can only prove its value through recommendations. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster > greater diversity of participation.^ > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present > IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also > true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include > more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society > causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all > participant segments and geographic regions,**as noted > above.**[Jeremy] Funding possibilities need to be improved and it > requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of > travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those > not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made > some funds available for representation from Less Developed > Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs > to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and > individual participants) would be several times that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected > in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total > visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, > which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding > for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would > amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the > quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be > significantly improved. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that > the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants > from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and > international organizations and the United Nations. The fund could > extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, > program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater > number of participants with special attention to participants from > unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or > unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, > represented regions if there is an individual need). Addressed previously. Would suggest all points on funding should be grouped in one place, significantly streamlined, and more realistic. > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable > research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare > consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 10:12:04 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:12:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Re: An Attached "Edited" Document Message-ID: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> Okay, in response to Bill... > I'm in the process of editing a couple of books, the next issue of the > Community Informatics journal etc.etc. so I inevitably read with a red > pencil in my hand. > > What I've done in the attached is edit the statement as I would edit any > other publication for which I'm responsible--for grammar, redundancy, > excessive opinionizing etc.etc. > > Thus in the attached are some both editorial and content judgements that > are generally not very controversial but in some cases are (I have dropped > most of "opinining" stuff in $3 and the specific's from #6 > I'm sending this along in a marked up and a clear version. (I'm off -- editing what I should be editing for most of the day. feel free to do with this as appropriate. > Best, > > M > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. > Editor in Chief: The Journal of Community Informatics > http://ci-journal.net > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC-2009.doc Type: application/msword Size: 97280 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC-2009-Clear.doc Type: application/msword Size: 73728 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 10:15:44 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:45:44 -0430 Subject: [governance] FW: Re: An Attached "Edited" Document In-Reply-To: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> Message-ID: <4A5C9310.4050003@gmail.com> Michael, I am just reading your draft. This is invaluable, and I appreciate it more than i can say... Does this mean the final draft just sent takes Bill's comments into account? Michael Gurstein wrote: > > <<...>> <<...>> > Okay, in response to Bill... > > I'm in the process of editing a couple of books, the next issue of the > Community Informatics journal etc.etc. so I inevitably read with a red > pencil in my hand. > > What I've done in the attached is edit the statement as I would edit > any other publication for which I'm responsible--for grammar, > redundancy, excessive opinionizing etc.etc. > > Thus in the attached are some both editorial and content judgements > that are generally not very controversial but in some cases are (I > have dropped most of "opinining" stuff in $3 and the specific's from #6 > > I'm sending this along in a marked up and a clear version… > > (I'm off -- editing what I should be editing for most of the day… feel > free to do with this as appropriate. > > Best, > > M > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. > Editor in Chief: The Journal of Community Informatics > _http://ci-journal.net_ > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 10:23:08 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:53:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5C6EC5.9070903@gmail.com> References: <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> <4A5C6EC5.9070903@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger A quick reply, "unconditional" used in the text makes a huge difference. Shiva. On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Shiva... I simply have problems with "unconditional". I do understand > your point, but I think it can be misinterpreted. I also think that it is > understood that grants made through the UN or the IGF Secretariat cannot > have any strings attached as to position. However, is there a different > phrase or other word you can suggest to convey your meaning? Are there any > other opinions on this? If I am the only one who objects to "unconditional", > we can leave it in. Thanks. Best, Ginger Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger, Hello All, > > Thanks for modifying this text, but what is > wrong with the idea of > unconditionality? That part is excluded from the > text ? > > IGC statements are sometimes? rushed out at the last moment, and > in > the last minute rush as the deadline approaches, the time-constraint > > justifies a more-than-necessary compromise, or the point is dropped > > completely. > > I feel that it is signinficant to propose the clause of > > unconditionality, perhaps for further debate at the MAG, and later in > the > process of acting upon this point. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On > Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Shiva has had to > run to catch a train, and has asked me to > continue this discussion. I have > tried to find a middle ground, > which is the following. Do please comment > and suggest revisions. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF > Secretariat to > apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding > for IGF > programs and participation to further enhance the quality of > > programs to foster greater diversity of participation. > > There are two > aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present > IGF participants > representing various stakeholder groups are > highly qualified individuals > with diverse accomplishments but it > is also true that IGF participation > needs to be further expanded > to include more Civil Society participants > known for their > commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on > various > Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do > > not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We > mention > in for example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with > disabilities, > rural people and particularly those who are the > poorest of > the poor, > landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting > peer-to-peer and open > access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those > looking to alternative modes of > Internet governance as ways of responding > to specific localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as > practitioners > and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary > resource > in support of broad-based economic and social development. > Funding > possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts, > > but availability of various categories of travel grants for > participants > may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at > the IGF for want of > funds. The IGF already has made some funds > available for representation > from Less Developed Countries, but > such funding achieves a limited > objective. > > The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible > > costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, > organizations > and individual participants) would be several times > that of the actual > outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing > the IGF, as reflected in > the IGF book of accounts. If an economist > estimates the total visible and > invisible costs of the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is already > being spent each year. > With an increment in funding for travel support to > panel speaker > and participants, which would amount to a small proportion > of the > true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the > > diversity of participation could be significantly improved. > > With this > rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends > that the IGF should > consider budgetary allocations supported by > grants from business, > governments, well funded non-governmental > and international organizations > and the United Nations. The fund > could extend travel grants to 200 lead > participants (panel > speakers, program organizers), full and partial > fellowships to a > greater number of participants with special attention to > > participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented > geographic > regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and > even to those from > affluent, represented regions if there is an > individual need). > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > As I said before, I support funding the > participation of > people from least developed countries. I do think that > the IGF > secretariat should have a reliable funding that ensure > > independence from private sector donations. > > I don't support the funding > of business leaders, business > class flights and expensive hotels. Since I > don't think we > agree on this latter part, I suggested to omit such > details. > jeanette > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Jeanette > Hoffmann > > The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the > > PRESENT realities and the statement stems from a positive > outlook > unconstrained by the present situation. Another > million or two or ten or > twenty for that matter, isn't way > beyond the reach of the IGF body. > > 1. > When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF > will find a way to > find funds to answer thiso call. > > 2. We need to make this statement if we > do not wish to > keep the IGF in eternal poverty, > > I am looking at your > later response and notice that I > would like it not mentioned what is > funded. The statement > is complete only with such a suggestion and in its > present > form, is there anything seriously objectionable with what > it > says about enhancing the quality of programs with > greater diversity of > participation? > > Thank you. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, > Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > Hi, the issue is not that I would like to > create > another California > as Michael G. suggests. > Of course, it would > be good if the IGF had more means > to support > people's participation. The > issue is whether it makes > sense to call > upon somebody for funding who > has no funding and spends a > significant amount of time on soliciting > donations for > its own > functioning. > If we ask for money, we should > specificy where this > money should > come from or how it could be > generated. > jeanette > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Shiva... you need to > address this concern. It is > not only > Jeanette who holds this view. > > > Thanks, gp > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Thank > you Shiva, I can see that you made a > serious > effort at compromise. > However, there are > still areas I > cannot agree with. Please consider the > > following > counter-proposal, and of course, we hope > for comments > from > others as well: > > [The following text was re-submitted by > Shiva, and > then > edited by Ginger] > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon > the > IGF > Secretariat to substantially fund IGF > programs and > participation > to further enhance the > quality of programs > with greater diversity of > participation. > > > The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the > > expenses > listed below. I don't understand why we would > want to "call > > upon the IGF Secretariat to > > substantially fund IGF programs and > > participation" in > light of the lack of such funds. > > jeanette > > > > There are two aspects to be considered in > this regard: > a) Present IGF > participants representing > various > stakeholder groups are highly > qualified > individuals with > diverse accomplishments but it is also true > > that IGF > participation needs to be further expanded > to include > more > Civil Society participants known for their > commitment and accomplishments > outside the > IGF arena on > various Civil Society causes. Business > > leaders who are > otherwise committed to social and other > governance > > issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all > governments > are represented > at the IGF. And b) The > present attendees > of the IGF do not represent all > participant > segments and > geographic regions. This needs to be > improved > and it > requires various efforts, but availability > of various > > categories of travel grants for > participants may help > improve > participation by those not > attending the IGF for > want of funds. IGF > already has made some > funds available > for representation from Less > Developed > Countries, but > such funding achieves a limited objective. > > > The true cost of the IGF (including all > visible and > invisible costs to > the IGF Secretariat, > participating > Governments, organizations and > individual > participants) > would be several times that of the actual > > outflow from > the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, > as reflected > > in the IGF book of accounts. If an > economist estimates > the total visible > and invisible costs of > the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is > already > spent. With > an increment in funding for travel support > to > panel > speaker and participants, which would > amount to a small > > proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the > quality of > panels and the > diversity of participation > could be improved. > > With this rationale, the > Internet > Governance Caucus > recommends that the IGF should consider > > budgetary > allocations supported by grants from business, > governments, > well funded non-governmental and > international organizations and the > United > Nations. The > fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead > > participants > (panel speakers, program organizers), full > and partial > > fellowships to a greater number of > participants with > special attention > to participants from > unrepresented > categories (unrepresented geographic > > regions and/or > unrepresented participant segments and even > to those > > from affluent, represented regions if there > is an > individual need ). > > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring > in more > diverse opinions to > the IGF from experts > who would add > further value to the IGF. It is > especially > recommended > that such a fund carry no link as to the > > positions or > content proposed by the presenter (as > opposed to a grant > > from a business trust with stated or > implied conditions > about the > positions to be taken). It is > recommended that > the IGF create a fund > large enough to have > significant > impact in further enhancing quality and > > diversity of > participation. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, > > Have revised the statement > and the > changes made are > highlighted. This mail is best viewed > with > html / > mime settings. ( for the convenience of > those whose > mail > settings are plain text, I am > attaching the > text as a PDF file which > would show the > highlighted > changes ) > > Thank you > > Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls > upon the IGF > > Secretariat to > fund the IGF programs and participation > substantially and > > significantly to further enhance the > quality of > programs with > > greater diversity of participation. > * *There are > two aspects to be > > considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ > present IGF > participants > > representing various stakeholder > groups are > highly qualified > > individuals with diverse > accomplishments but it > is also true that > IGF > participation needs to be > further expanded to > invite and > include more > Civil Society > participants known for > their commitment > and > accomplishments outside the IGF > arena on > various Civil Society > causes > ; business leaders who are > otherwise > committed to social > and other > governance issues are not > seen at the > IGF, and not all > governments are > represented at the > IGF ( and > though not for > financial reasons, the > present > participants from > Government are > not represented on a high > enough > level ) - [ this > sentence in > parenthesis may be deleted if > > unnecessary as it > is not directly > relevant to the point ] and b) The > > present > participants of the IGF > do not represent all participant > > segments and > geographic regions. > This needs to be improved and it > > requires various > efforts, but > availability of various categories > of > Travel > Grants for different > classes of participants may help improve > > participation by those > not attending the IGF for want of > funds. IGF > > already has made some > funds available for representation > from Less > > Developed Countries, > but such funding achieves a limited > objective. > > > The true cost of the IGF (including > all visible > and invisible > costs to > the IGF Secretariat, > participating > Governments, > organizations and > individual > participants) would > be several times > that of the actual > outflow from the IGF > Secretariat in organizing > the IGF, as reflected in > the IGF book of > accounts. If an economist > estimates the total visible > and > invisible costs > of the IGF, it > would be an enormous sum, which is > > already spent. > For want of a > marginal allocation for travel > support > to panel > speaker and > participants, which would amount to > a small > > proportion of the true > cost of the IGF, the quality of > panels and the > > diversity of > participation are compromised. > > With this rationale, the > Internet > Governance > Caucus recommends > that the IGF should consider > liberal > budgetary > allocations > supported by unconditional grants > from > business, > governments, well > funded non-governmental and > international > > organizations and the > United Nations. The fund may extend > > uncompromising, comfortable > travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead > > participants (panel > speakers, program organizers, who > are largely > > invitees who are > required to be well-received for > participation), > full > and partial > fellowships to a large number of > participants > with special > > attention to participants from > unrepresented > categories > > (unrepresented geographic regions and/or > unrepresented participant > > segments and even to those from > affluent, > represented regions if > there > is an individual need ). > > Such a fund would enable the IGF to > bring in > > really diverse > opinions to the IGF from experts who > would add > > further value to > the IGF. It is especially > recommended that such a > > fund may be > built up from contributions that are > unconditional (as > opposed to > a grant from a business trust with > stated or > implied > conditions > about the positions to be taken; > 'unconditional' > does not > imply > that funds may have to be disbursed > without even > the basic > > conditions that the recipient should > attend the > IGF and attend the > > sessions etc. In this context > "unconditional" > means something > larger. > It is to hint at a system of > Travel > Grants whereby IGF > will pool funds > from Business > Corporations, > Governments, > International Organizations, > well > funded NGOs and > UN with no > implied conditions on the positions > > to be taken > by participants*)* > and may be awarded to panelists and > > participants > unconditionally. > It is recommended that the IGF > create a > fund > large enough to have > significant impact in further > enhancing > quality > and diversity of > participation. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Mon, > Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, > Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy > > > > >>> wrote: > > > Hello Ginger > > Will have just a little time to > spend on this, > will > review the > complete questionnaire comments, and > reword the > Q6 comment, > but > don't really have a lot of time > today. Leaving > for the city in a > > few hours for a short trip, will > find some time > to work tomorrow > as > well, but not tonight. > > Would prefer this as an IGC > statement, rather > > than as an > independent proposal, which I could > have sent it > on my own > but > preferred not to. > > Shiva. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, > > Ginger Paque > > > > >>> wrote: > > Hi Shiva, > > I was referring to Q6, as > > several of us - > including myself, > and Ian, as well as Michael and > > others, are > not yet satisfied > with the wording on the funding > concept. > You > are welcome to > continue the discussion and see > if you can > reach > a consensus > on it, but I suspect that by the > time > everyone is happy, > the > statement won't say much of > anything. Could > you review the > > thread on Q6, including Ian's > answer to the > complete > questionnaire > draft, and tell us > what you think? > > Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > > > Thanks. I appreciate your > willingness to discuss. > > Best, > Ginger > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > You would like this > > submitted as my own > comment, rather > than as an IGC statement? Is > this > only on > Q6 or does it > also apply to Q3? > > There were further exchanges > > between > Gurstein and me, and > the misunderstanding are > being > clarified. > Would you really > feel that the entire > statement has to be > > dropped as > comment from IGC? > > Thanks. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at > 4:40 > PM, Ginger Paque > > > > >> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > Shiva, As there > seems to > be quite a > bit of controversy > about this > concept and > wording, and > we are very > short on time, I > wonder if we > could > continue this > discussion after > the questionnaire is > submitted, perhaps > for > comments to be > submitted by the > August > deadline? > > In the > meantime, you > could submit your > own comment, > which would > give you > more freedom to > make your > point. Is that > acceptable to you? > > > Regards, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: > > Hello Michael > Gurstein > > A quick reply and a > little more later. > > On Mon, Jul 13, > 2009 > at 6:12 AM, > Michael Gurstein > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > Hi, > > -----Original > Message----- > *From:* > > Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy > > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>] > *Sent:* > Sunday, July 12, > 2009 > 6:18 PM > *To:* > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>>>; Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* Re: > > [governance] > Question 6: > Comments on Siva's > proposed paras > > Hello > Michael > Gurstein, > > On Mon, Jul > 13, 2009 at > 2:50 AM, Michael > > Gurstein > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > "The Internet > Governance Caucus calls > upon the IGF > > Secretariat > to fund the > IGF programs and > participation > > substantially and > > significantly to > further enhance the > quality of > programs > with > greater > diversity of > > participation" sounds > better? > YES... > > Thanks. > > > > There are > two aspects > to be considered > in this > > regard: a) > The absence or > > non-participation of > some of the world's > > most renowned > Civil > Society opinion > leaders is > noticeable; > > Business Leaders > who are > otherwise > committed to > social and > other > > governance issues off > IGF are not > seen at > the IGF; > > Governments are > not > represented on a > level high enough > > HMMM. > WHO/WHAT EXACTLY > IS > MEANT BY > "RENOWNED CIVIL > SOCIETY > OPINION > LEADERS" > (IN SOME > > CIRCLES THERE > ARE AT LEAST TWO AND > PROBABLY MORE > INTERNAL > > > CONTRADITIONS IN THAT > SIMPLE STATEMENT > AND CERTAINLY > NEITHER WE > NOR > THE > > SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE > EXPECTED TO > IDENTIFY WHO THESE > > "RENOWNED" > FOLKS MIGHT > BE. > > AS WELL, > ARE WE LOOKING > FOR CIVIL > > SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > FOLKS FROM > CIVIL > SOCIETY > ORGANIZATIONS > IN > LEADERSHIP > POSITIONS, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING > FOR CIVIL > SOCIETY > > SPOKESPEOPLE > WHO UNDERSTAND IG > ISSUES, OR > ARE WE > LOOKING > FOR > LEADERS > OF RESPONSIBLE > REPRESENTATIVE CS > ORGANIZATIONS WHO > HAVE A > > > POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES > (EACH OF THESE > CATEGORIES IS > > PROBABLY > DISCREET AND > COULD BE INCLUDED > AMBIGUOUSLY > UNDER > YOUR > > STATEMENT. > > IF BIZ > LEADERS THINK IT > IS OF SUFFICIENT > IMPORTANCE > > THEY'LL > LIKELY COME, IF > NOT, NOT > AND NOT MUCH > WE OR THE > > SECRETARIAT CAN DO > ABOUT > THAT AND > SIMILARLY > WITH > GOVERNMENTS. > > > I THINK > THIS PARA > SHOULD BE DROPPED... > > > I am sorry, I > don't agree > > with your negative > interpretation of > such a > positive suggestion. > > Are we to assert > that the > present > participants > constitute a > > complete, > representative, and > ultimate group > ? NO, BUT > I'M HAVING > > TROUBLE SEEING WHAT > NAOMI KLEIN OR > VENDANA > SHIVA WOULD > HAVE TO > > CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > > I will have to browse > a little to > learn about > Naomi > Klein; > Vendana Shiva is an > Indian name > that sounds > familiar, > but I > wasn't thinking of > these names, > nor was my point > intended to > > bring in anyone whom > I know or > associated with. > Looks like > you are > reading > between the lines > of what I write. > > HAVING > THE HEAD OF > > SEWA OR K-NET > WOULD SEEM TO > ME TO BE RATHER > MORE USEFUL, > "RENOWNED" > OR > NOT, AS THEY AT > LEAST COULD TALK > WITH SOME > DIRECT KNOWLEDGE > > ABOUT HOW IG > ISSUES IMPACT > THEM AND > THE KINDS OF > THINGS THEY > ARE > TRYING TO DO ON > THE GROUND. > > Again an Indian > reference - you > have > used the word > "Sewa" in > your comment. Perhaps > you are > reading me as > someone > pushing > the Indian point of > view? I am > not. I am born in > > India, a > participant from > India, I have > faith in and respect > for my > > country but I believe > that in an > International > context I am at > > least a little wider > than a > national. I have been > inspired by > > teachers who taught > me in my > school days that > "patriotism is a > > prejudice" which is > profound > thinking which in > depths implies > that > one must be > beyond being > patriotic and be > rather global. > > (Will > come back this > point and > write more in > response to what > you have > written a > little later) > > Thank you. > Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy. > > > > MBG > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > M > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 10:28:21 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:28:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Re: An Attached "Edited" Document In-Reply-To: <4A5C9310.4050003@gmail.com> Message-ID: No, I haven't looked at Bill's comments at all and I'm about to go out of this discussion to do my "real" work... M -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:16 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Re: An Attached "Edited" Document Michael, I am just reading your draft. This is invaluable, and I appreciate it more than i can say... Does this mean the final draft just sent takes Bill's comments into account? Michael Gurstein wrote: > > <<...>> <<...>> > Okay, in response to Bill... > > I'm in the process of editing a couple of books, the next issue of the > Community Informatics journal etc.etc. so I inevitably read with a red > pencil in my hand. > > What I've done in the attached is edit the statement as I would edit > any other publication for which I'm responsible--for grammar, > redundancy, excessive opinionizing etc.etc. > > Thus in the attached are some both editorial and content judgements > that are generally not very controversial but in some cases are (I > have dropped most of "opinining" stuff in $3 and the specific's from #6 > > I'm sending this along in a marked up and a clear version. > > (I'm off -- editing what I should be editing for most of the day. feel > free to do with this as appropriate. > > Best, > > M > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. > Editor in Chief: The Journal of Community Informatics > _http://ci-journal.net_ > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 10:35:13 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:05:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] FW: Re: An Attached "Edited" Document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5C97A1.2010409@gmail.com> Ok, many thanks. I will post a combined statement shortly for review and a call for consensus. Michael Gurstein wrote: > No, I haven't looked at Bill's comments at all and I'm about to go out of > this discussion to do my "real" work... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:16 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Re: An Attached "Edited" Document > > > Michael, I am just reading your draft. This is invaluable, and I > appreciate it more than i can say... > > Does this mean the final draft just sent takes Bill's comments into account? > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> <<...>> <<...>> >> Okay, in response to Bill... >> >> I'm in the process of editing a couple of books, the next issue of the >> Community Informatics journal etc.etc. so I inevitably read with a red >> pencil in my hand. >> >> What I've done in the attached is edit the statement as I would edit >> any other publication for which I'm responsible--for grammar, >> redundancy, excessive opinionizing etc.etc. >> >> Thus in the attached are some both editorial and content judgements >> that are generally not very controversial but in some cases are (I >> have dropped most of "opinining" stuff in $3 and the specific's from #6 >> >> I'm sending this along in a marked up and a clear version. >> >> (I'm off -- editing what I should be editing for most of the day. feel >> free to do with this as appropriate. >> >> Best, >> >> M >> >> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. >> Editor in Chief: The Journal of Community Informatics >> _http://ci-journal.net_ >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Jul 14 10:40:18 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:40:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete In-Reply-To: <981D02DF-A3E1-4D4F-84D0-81B208F154FF@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A5B1943.1060301@gmail.com> <4A5B4B89.5020905@gmail.com> <4A5BB5FA.70902@gmail.com> <4A5C2193.2030607@itforchange.net> <4A5C6DE9.5020606@gmail.com> <981D02DF-A3E1-4D4F-84D0-81B208F154FF@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A5C98D2.9000809@wzb.eu> Hi, I agree with Bill re question 2. Moreover, I don't suppor the following paragraph since my reading results in a multiple possible interpretations and not just the one outlined below: A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet >> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. I also think that the text is too long. Here are a few parts of the text I think we could delete without losing too much: ** Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** **The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions,**as noted above.**[Jeremy] Funding possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, ut such funding achieves a limited objective.** >> **The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be significantly improved. >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need). Last point: Like Ginger, I am supposted to unconditional funding. jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> I believe I took every suggestion into account. > > The right step a), but shouldn't we do a step b) and try and winnow it > down? It's currently eight pages, and some of the responses go into a > good deal of detail on points advocated by individual drafters that > haven't elicited much group discussion. > >> >> Please do let us know your thoughts on this. I think we are reaching >> consensus on a final draft. If this is not true, please let me know. > > We need to do a consensus call on a final text to judge that, no? > > Unfortunately I'm rushing today and can't help word smith, but there's a > number of bits of awkward phraseology (starting with the first sentence) > and a need for copyediting. That aside, just few quick observations: >> >> >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis >> >> Agenda? >> >> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically >> set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are >> contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet >> governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. >> >> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its >> way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on >> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary >> innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up >> the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the >> IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy >> dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping >> processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success >> will be judged from how much it managed to influence these real >> policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of >> success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its >> mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue >> structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy >> dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) >> strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. >> >> In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the >> area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >> organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' >> (72 c). >> >> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its >> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing >> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the >> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying >> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. >> >> It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at >> least three areas >> >> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of >> view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because >> it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance >> and policy models than exclusively statist ones. >> >> 2. Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >> participants, especially from developing countries with >> under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >> >> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >> interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional >> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > I'd say inspiring >> >> >> [corrected the following, taking out “all talk, as requested by >> Parminder, put back the paras inadvertently left out] >> **Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss >> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in >> order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability >> and development of the Internet. >> >> >> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that >> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so >> that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all >> actors, particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which >> have not been adequately addressed. >> >> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >> processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is >> heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are >> already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and >> seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, >> including the IGF Remote Hubs. Since the fear of governmental >> domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use >> global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate >> multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again >> offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** >> >> >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >> organizations.” **As per WSIS principles IG “should ensure an >> equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and >> ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into >> account multilingualism”.** Governments invoked these principles >> throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF >> to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >> principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF >> has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key >> element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has >> consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence >> welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the >> WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core >> of all IGF discussions. > > second line needs an edit, e.g. they also state that iG should... >> >> >> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards >> a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance >> - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >> building block for such an effort. >> >> >> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet >> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. >> >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to >> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in >> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals >> to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in >> keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and >> relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each >> other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should >> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > I remain of the view that this bit on rights would be better positioned > as a stand alone issue in section 7. On the one hand, that the > principles are intrinsically all about rights is a contention of some, > not a globally shared interpretation of all. One of course could make > the argument that there's a right to information that equates to > transparency, a right to participation, a right to names in one's > language, etc...but this hasn't been debated and agreed in IGF or > elsewhere. Insisting that all the WSIS principles must be seen as a > matter of rights could scare off some parties before the fact and make > it hard to persuade them to engage seriously on the issues. And on the > other hand, by conflating the two the rights agenda seemingly becomes > all about the WSIS principles rather than a broader approach to the > range of IG issues. I wouldn't have thought that's what rights > advocates want. > > Anyway, Parminder and I have both expressed views on this, it'd be good > to hear from others too. >> >> >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? >> Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level >> of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is >> observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than >> during WSIS, and less confrontation. **Due to the request by the IGF >> Secretariat to merge proposals, there are workshops and panels that >> include business, government, academia and civil society working >> together and exchanging ideas on various levels.** [Removed reference >> to 2009 as per Parminder] >> >> >> The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is >> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on >> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or >> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which >> in turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder >> groups. One might also ask different questions such as "Has your >> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? >> "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that >> has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the >> multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any >> particular governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the >> IGF. >> >> >> The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other >> international policy process and governments perceive civil society >> participation in the policy making process. > > This seems a rather bald statement. Are we assuming for it's changed it > for the better? Think China and Saudi Arabia feel that way? I'd > decenter CS and say its improving mutual understanding and perceptions > in all directions etc > >> During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, >> governments have had an opportunity to experience > > It is fair to say not all have been overjoyed by this opportunity > >> the mutlistakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming >> comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' >> equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust >> in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this >> will have other widespread impact. >> >> >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> >> ****[Parminder] >> >> ****[Ian] >> >> *Membership of the MAG* >> >> • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the >> required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, >> but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the >> present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG >> members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year. > > Do we need to say this, that's the deal now > >> ****[Ian] >> • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder >> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be >> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members >> among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is >> necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global >> governance. >> • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards should >> continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >> ****[Ian] >> • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, >> special interest groups. >> >> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >> >> With the experience of **four [Parminder]** years of the IGF, it is >> also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. >> To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is >> expected to perform. >> >> • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the >> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying >> out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further >> improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG >> must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. >> These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more >> than what it is today, to enable it to fulfil all aspects of its >> mandate. **A MAG that is little more than a program committee will >> not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or fulfilment >> of the WSIS mandate.** >> >> • It will > > would > >> be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These >> WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops >> connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing >> internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >> >> • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has >> any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. >> For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires >> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving >> recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able >> to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can >> cohere in the UN Secretary General. > > I do not support this and would like to hear whether others do. >> >> • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >> plans for the year ahead. We >> >> suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would >> also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and >> prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum >> beyond 2010. >> >> • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, >> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >> drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a >> need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >> >> * >> >> Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* >> >> >> >> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >> fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF >> Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible >> for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided >> with resources needed to perform its role effectively. >> >> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >> of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF >> annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. >> >> *Special Advisors and Chair* >> >> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >> mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for >> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors >> should be kept within a reasonable limit. >> ****[Ian] >> >> >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> 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 need to be strengthened. > > this seems a very selective reading of the mandate. I'd say something > like two key elements of the mandate are... >> >> 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 effectiveness vis-a-vis that role. >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the >> more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring >> it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be >> sought. >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet >> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more >> participative and democratic. >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the >> last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF >> should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to >> carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public >> interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN >> organization gets involved in the IGF's management. > > Repetitious? >> >> >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> >> >> **We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In >> >> addition, we submit:**[Ian] >> >> >> >> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with >> near-unanimous response that it should continue, > > Are we simply waving away the opposition of China, various ME > governments, etc? Not sure that's a clever thing for CS to do. > >> we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of >> more inclusive participation. More importantly, the energy not >> needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search >> for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and >> developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote >> participation remote, including transcription and archiving. >> >> >> >> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: >> >> >> “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular >> attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups >> of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and >> refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and >> nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older >> persons and persons with disabilities.” We include **in >> particular**[Jeremy], Indigenous peoples worldwide, ****[Jeremy]rural >> people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and >> often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to >> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic >> platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as >> ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and >> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in >> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad >> based economic and social development. >> >> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of >> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in >> 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. >> For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the >> "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an >> isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather, >> perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet >> governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work >> and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional >> fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a >> capstone for the work done elsewhere. > > I don't understand the interplay of these two paragraphs. Are we saying > that if more meetings are held in different regions (still far flung, > depending on where you are), displaced persons and refugees, minorities > and nomadic people, etc. will come debate IPV6, core resources, etc? >> >> >> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex >> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more >> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with >> few resources. >> **Accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and >> city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into >> consideration as well.** > > Means meetings should be held in relatively cheap cities that are major > airline hubs? > >> [Jeremy] Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in >> advance to allow for budgeting and >> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is >> competitive and convenient. >> >> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term >> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and >> policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, >> using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing >> in some regions and to help others to start. >> >> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >> support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >> in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these >> years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of >> multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This >> should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the >> annual IGF meeting. >> >> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce >> more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. In >> the past various such innovations have been considered - including >> speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but >> always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due >> to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives. Although it may >> be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF >> as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to >> the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production >> of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > Over the years many IGC members have argued against this but are not > participating in this discussion now. Are we going to go ahead and say > this on the "you snooze, you lose" principle? > > I certainly do not support the proposition that the IGF can only prove > its value through recommendations. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >> diversity of participation.^ >> >> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF >> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly >> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true >> that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more >> Civil Society participants known for their commitment and >> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. >> And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all >> participant segments and geographic regions,**as noted >> above.**[Jeremy] Funding possibilities need to be improved and it >> requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of >> travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those >> not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made >> some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, >> but such funding achieves a limited objective. >> >> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to >> the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and >> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual >> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected >> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total >> visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, >> which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding >> for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would >> amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the >> quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be >> significantly improved. >> >> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that >> the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from >> business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international >> organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel >> grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), >> full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with >> special attention to participants from unrepresented categories >> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant >> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there >> is an individual need). > > > Addressed previously. Would suggest all points on funding should be > grouped in one place, significantly streamlined, and more realistic. >> >> >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ >> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 11:55:40 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:25:40 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> Message-ID: <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> Dear Michael, Bill, Jeanette and all, I have used MG's "clear" file as a base document, and added Bill's and Jeanette's and other missing suggestions with ** Some of these edits were already made by MG, so they do not appear now. Please excuse the overlap as I try to reconcile several versions and sets of suggestions that have come in recently. Most of MG's edits were simple editing, but in particular, we need to consider the changes (MG) to Q3 and Q6. I agree with Michael's edits, and would ask that Shiva again consider submitting his complete statement as a personal statement to the IGF. Shiva, this allows you to keep your wording, including "unconditional". The tone of our statement as below is now more even, and reflects the opinions expressed as well as I was able to do so. I have tried to edit the paragraph that MG suggests needs clarification, but I suggest deleting it, as the question of the MAG as a "program committee" is addressed elsewhere, and this para is indeed incoherent, as MG says. Bill also questions this para, so I suggest we indeed remove it: "We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General." Bill, and Jeanette, in reference to Bill's point: "I remain of the view that this bit on rights would be better positioned as a stand alone issue in section 7. On the one hand, that the principles are intrinsically all about rights is a contention of some, not a globally shared interpretation of all. One of course could make the argument that there's a right to information that equates to transparency, a right to participation, a right to names in one's language, etc...but this hasn't been debated and agreed in IGF or elsewhere. Insisting that all the WSIS principles must be seen as a matter of rights could scare off some parties before the fact and make it hard to persuade them to engage seriously on the issues. And on the other hand, by conflating the two the rights agenda seemingly becomes all about the WSIS principles rather than a broader approach to the range of IG issues. I wouldn't have thought that's what rights advocates want. " I suggest that we change the first part of the referred text from: "A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF." To: A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. And leave it where it is because of its link to the WSIS principles. Please take a careful look for final comments. We should begin a call for Consensus today! Thanks everyone! Ginger 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary Innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill’s edit] improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? *Membership of the MAG* **[Bill suggests we delete]• The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** •** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with special needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. *Role and Structure of the MAG* With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. • It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]• We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. **In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.** *Special Advisors and Chair* The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: **[Delete, as per Bill’s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jul 14 17:10:29 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:10:29 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> Message-ID: A few comments below (very few) > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, > and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going > process of evolutionary > Innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up > the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF > take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on > them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real > policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by > how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If > this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF > is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It > needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable > 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area > of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' > (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental > organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 > c). I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any clear success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something similaR > > IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its > mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing > ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the > Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying > emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > talking with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of > view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it > is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for > multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional > initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, > particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not > been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As > already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking > shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish > formal relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. > IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** > > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an > equitable > distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable > and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account > multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles throughout the > WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and > assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. > The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s > statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as > a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet > the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] I would include this but happy to go either way > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was > during > WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF > Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that > include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > question is > posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in > IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your > involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted > in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder > process changed or affected your perspective on any particular > governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill¹s edit] improving mutual > understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the > preparatory phase > as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an > opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of > the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of > consultation. > This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF > process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory > governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread > impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > *Membership of the MAG* > > **[Bill suggests we delete]€ The MAG should be large enough so that its > members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity > and experience, but not so > large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present > circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One > third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** > I agree lets delete > €** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the > multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be > remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is > necessary > to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups > with special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > *Role and Structure of the MAG* > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will > be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out > this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG > that is little more than a program committee will not effectively > advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS > mandate. > > € It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through working > groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set > of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]€ We also seek greater clarity at > this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than > advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part > of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying > issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, > needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that > these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** > > € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by > the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph > 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the > discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up > for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is > also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. > While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of > the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with > the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. > > **In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries > with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct > of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations.** > > > *Special Advisors and Chair* > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should > be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to > be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to > improve effectiveness. > > [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet > policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding > from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To > this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no > other UN organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, > we submit: > > **[Delete, as per Bill¹s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of > the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement > that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus > on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of > rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, > remote participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the > Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special > needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of > society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. > We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons > with disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous > peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who > are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those > concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance > structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative > modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and > activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support > of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s > inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be > appropriate for the > Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face > meeting. > Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and > for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the > work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should > more clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > options, and > city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration > as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should > be announced 360 > days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to > ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is > competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the > Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC > contends that the IGF as a > whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the > international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of > non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG > activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for > example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ > stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Tue Jul 14 17:21:03 2009 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:21:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a5cf6bf72b_ebe1555555881ac10b1@weasel3.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jul 14 17:42:11 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:42:11 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: One more comment - The text includes >the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the > long term it does not prove its value to the international community > by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements > on Internet public policy issues. BILL DRAKE COMMENTED "Over the years many IGC members have argued against this but are not participating in this discussion now. Are we going to go ahead and say this on the "you snooze, you lose" principle? I certainly do not support the proposition that the IGF can only prove its value through recommendations." While being ambivalent about whether we should include something about non binding statements or not, I certainly don't think that IGF can only prove its value through recommendations so I agree this needs to be better expressed if we include something here and would also oppose the current wording. But on the bigger question - do we want to suggest development of mechanisms for producing non binding statements? I suspect we are divided here but it would be good to have a few comments, particularly from those who do not think this is a good idea, so we can decide whether anything along these lines should be included. On 15/07/09 7:10 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > A few comments below (very few) > > >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> >> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically >> set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are >> contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet >> governance, >> and specifically about public policy-making in this area. >> >> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its >> way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on >> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going >> process of evolutionary >> Innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up >> the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF >> take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on >> them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real >> policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by >> how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If >> this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF >> is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It >> needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable >> 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most >> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >> processes of real policy making. >> >> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area >> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >> organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 >> c). > > I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any clear > success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something > similaR >> >> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its >> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing >> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the >> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying >> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress >> >> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >> >> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of >> view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it >> is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >> >> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed >> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >> >> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional >> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). >> >> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to >> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >> development of the Internet. >> >> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that >> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that >> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, >> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not >> been adequately addressed. >> >> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >> processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As >> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish >> formal relationships with these initiatives, including >> through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of >> governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >> should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >> appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. >> IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** >> >> >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an >> equitable >> distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable >> and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account >> multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles throughout the >> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and >> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in >> Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any >> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. >> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s >> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as >> a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >> >> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a >> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >> building block for such an effort. >> >> **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet >> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] > > I would include this but happy to go either way >> >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize >> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of >> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should >> govern the >> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >> acted as a catalyst for change? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of >> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was >> during >> WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF >> Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that >> include business, government, academia and civil society working >> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > >> >> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >> question is >> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on >> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or >> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in >> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder >> groups. >> >> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >> involvement in >> IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your >> involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted >> in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder >> process changed or affected your perspective on any particular >> governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. >> >> The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill¹s edit] improving mutual >> understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the >> preparatory phase >> as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >> opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of >> the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of >> consultation. >> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF >> process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory >> governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread >> impact. >> >> >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> >> >> *Membership of the MAG* >> >> **[Bill suggests we delete]€ The MAG should be large enough so that its >> members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity >> and experience, but not so >> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present >> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >> third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** >> > I agree lets delete > >> €** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >> remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is >> necessary >> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >> representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >> € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >> with special >> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >> >> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >> >> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time >> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >> >> € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the >> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are >> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG >> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively >> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS >> mandate. >> >> € It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through working >> groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set >> of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >> >> **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]€ We also seek greater clarity at >> this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than >> advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part >> of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying >> issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, >> needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that >> these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** > >> >> € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph >> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the >> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >> >> € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up >> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >> >> >> *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* >> >> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of >> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with >> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >> >> **In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >> of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries >> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct >> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory >> consultations.** >> >> >> *Special Advisors and Chair* >> >> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for >> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should >> be kept within a reasonable limit. >> >> >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for >> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to >> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to >> improve effectiveness. >> >> [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >> Internet >> policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more >> participative and democratic. >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for >> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding >> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions >> effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To >> this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no >> other UN organization in the IGF's management. >> >> >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> >> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >> we submit: >> >> **[Delete, as per Bill¹s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of >> the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement >> that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus >> on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** >> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive >> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current >> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of >> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >> remote participation including transcription and archiving. >> >> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the >> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of >> society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. >> We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons >> with disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous >> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who >> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those >> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance >> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative >> modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support >> of broad based economic and social development. >> >> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s >> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be >> appropriate for the >> Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face >> meeting. >> Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance >> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and >> for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the >> work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >> >> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >> more clearly >> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >> options, and >> city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration >> as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should >> be announced 360 >> days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to >> ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is >> competitive and convenient. >> >> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >> support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be >> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the >> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >> >> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >> contends that the IGF as a >> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >> >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ >> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 17:52:41 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:22:41 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5CFE29.9000709@gmail.com> Thanks, Ian, for both of your emails. I agree, if we need clarification on this and other details, it should be done soon, because we are close to our deadline. As I mentioned earlier, I will be traveling tomorrow, and will not be back online until 15:00 GMT. So it would help if those who have comments could propose actual text, and discuss it. Thanks everybody, for your time and energy. Best, Ginger Ian Peter wrote: > One more comment - > > The text includes > > >> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the >> long term it does not prove its value to the international community >> by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements >> on Internet public policy issues. >> > > BILL DRAKE COMMENTED > "Over the years many IGC members have argued against this but are not > participating in this discussion now. Are we going to go ahead and > say this on the "you snooze, you lose" principle? > > I certainly do not support the proposition that the IGF can only prove > its value through recommendations." > > While being ambivalent about whether we should include something about non > binding statements or not, I certainly don't think that IGF can only prove > its value through recommendations so I agree this needs to be better > expressed if we include something here and would also oppose the current > wording. > > But on the bigger question - do we want to suggest development of > mechanisms for producing non binding statements? I suspect we are divided > here but it would be good to have a few comments, particularly from those > who do not think this is a good idea, so we can decide whether anything > along these lines should be included. > > > > On 15/07/09 7:10 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > >> A few comments below (very few) >> >> >> >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >>> the Tunis Agenda? >>> >>> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically >>> set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are >>> contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet >>> governance, >>> and specifically about public policy-making in this area. >>> >>> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its >>> way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on >>> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going >>> process of evolutionary >>> Innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up >>> the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF >>> take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on >>> them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real >>> policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by >>> how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If >>> this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF >>> is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It >>> needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable >>> 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most >>> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >>> processes of real policy making. >>> >>> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area >>> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >>> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 >>> c). >>> >> I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any clear >> success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something >> similaR >> >>> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its >>> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing >>> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the >>> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying >>> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. >>> >> I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress >> >>> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >>> >>> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >>> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of >>> view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it >>> is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >>> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >>> >>> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >>> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed >>> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >>> >>> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >>> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >>> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional >>> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). >>> >>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >>> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to >>> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >>> development of the Internet. >>> >>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >>> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >>> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >>> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that >>> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that >>> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, >>> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not >>> been adequately addressed. >>> >>> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >>> processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As >>> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >>> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish >>> formal relationships with these initiatives, including >>> through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of >>> governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >>> should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >>> appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. >>> IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** >>> >>> >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> >>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be >>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >>> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an >>> equitable >>> distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable >>> and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account >>> multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles throughout the >>> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and >>> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in >>> Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any >>> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. >>> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >>> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s >>> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as >>> a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >>> >>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >>> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >>> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a >>> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >>> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >>> building block for such an effort. >>> >>> **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet >>> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >>> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >>> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] >>> >> I would include this but happy to go either way >> >>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize >>> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >>> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >>> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >>> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of >>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>> >>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >>> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >>> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should >>> govern the >>> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>> >>> >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >>> acted as a catalyst for change? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of >>> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >>> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was >>> during >>> WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF >>> Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that >>> include business, government, academia and civil society working >>> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >>> >>> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >>> question is >>> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on >>> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or >>> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in >>> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder >>> groups. >>> >>> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >>> involvement in >>> IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your >>> involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted >>> in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder >>> process changed or affected your perspective on any particular >>> governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill¹s edit] improving mutual >>> understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the >>> preparatory phase >>> as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >>> opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of >>> the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of >>> consultation. >>> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF >>> process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory >>> governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread >>> impact. >>> >>> >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >>> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>> >>> >>> *Membership of the MAG* >>> >>> **[Bill suggests we delete]€ The MAG should be large enough so that its >>> members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity >>> and experience, but not so >>> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present >>> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >>> third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** >>> >>> >> I agree lets delete >> >> >>> €** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >>> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >>> remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is >>> necessary >>> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >>> € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >>> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >>> representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >>> € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >>> with special >>> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >>> >>> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >>> >>> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time >>> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >>> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >>> >>> € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the >>> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >>> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >>> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >>> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are >>> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >>> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG >>> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively >>> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS >>> mandate. >>> >>> € It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through working >>> groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set >>> of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >>> >>> **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]€ We also seek greater clarity at >>> this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than >>> advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part >>> of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying >>> issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, >>> needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that >>> these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** >>> >>> € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >>> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >>> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >>> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph >>> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the >>> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >>> >>> € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >>> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up >>> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >>> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >>> >>> >>> *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* >>> >>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >>> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >>> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >>> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >>> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of >>> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with >>> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >>> >>> **In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >>> of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries >>> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct >>> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory >>> consultations.** >>> >>> >>> *Special Advisors and Chair* >>> >>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >>> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >>> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for >>> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should >>> be kept within a reasonable limit. >>> >>> >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>> >>> **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to >>> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to >>> improve effectiveness. >>> >>> [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. >>> >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >>> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >>> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >>> >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >>> Internet >>> policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more >>> participative and democratic. >>> >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for >>> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding >>> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions >>> effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To >>> this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no >>> other UN organization in the IGF's management. >>> >>> >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>> processes? >>> >>> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >>> we submit: >>> >>> **[Delete, as per Bill¹s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of >>> the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement >>> that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus >>> on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** >>> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive >>> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current >>> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of >>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >>> remote participation including transcription and archiving. >>> >>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the >>> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >>> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of >>> society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >>> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. >>> We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons >>> with disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous >>> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who >>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those >>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance >>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative >>> modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >>> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support >>> of broad based economic and social development. >>> >>> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >>> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s >>> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >>> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >>> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be >>> appropriate for the >>> Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face >>> meeting. >>> Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance >>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >>> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and >>> for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the >>> work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >>> >>> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >>> more clearly >>> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >>> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >>> options, and >>> city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration >>> as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should >>> be announced 360 >>> days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to >>> ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is >>> competitive and convenient. >>> >>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >>> support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >>> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be >>> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the >>> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >>> >>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >>> contends that the IGF as a >>> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >>> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >>> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >>> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >>> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >>> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >>> >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >>> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ >>> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 21:32:20 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:32:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0907141832k10e82c14g154e564e92aff5e1@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ginger and all, Thank you for the work you have done preparing this base document. I would like to suggest to add at point 7: - the need of translation of the material, documents, etc., to as many languages as possible - the need to continue working in the improvement of the participatory methodology, having as objective to assure equal opportunities for the participation, incidence and appropriation of the IGF for all -specially those of developing and under-developed countries and minoritarian groups-. And of course, I would like to add me and the organization I work at to the list of those who agree with and support this document -if possible-. Thanks! Roxana Goldstein Centro Redes (Centro de Estudios sobre Ciencia, Desarrollo y Educación Superior) - Argentina 2009/7/14 Ginger Paque > Dear Michael, Bill, Jeanette and all, > > I have used MG's "clear" file as a base document, and added Bill's and > Jeanette's and other missing suggestions with ** Some of these edits were > already made by MG, so they do not appear now. Please excuse the overlap as > I try to reconcile several versions and sets of suggestions that have come > in recently. > > Most of MG's edits were simple editing, but in particular, we need to > consider the changes (MG) to Q3 and Q6. I agree with Michael's edits, and > would ask that Shiva again consider submitting his complete statement as a > personal statement to the IGF. Shiva, this allows you to keep your wording, > including "unconditional". The tone of our statement as below is now more > even, and reflects the opinions expressed as well as I was able to do so. > > I have tried to edit the paragraph that MG suggests needs clarification, > but I suggest deleting it, as the question of the MAG as a "program > committee" is addressed elsewhere, and this para is indeed incoherent, as MG > says. Bill also questions this para, so I suggest we indeed remove it: > > "We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has any > substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. For > instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires > 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' > etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. > It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary > General." > > Bill, and Jeanette, in reference to Bill's point: > "I remain of the view that this bit on rights would be better positioned as > a stand alone issue in section 7. On the one hand, that the principles are > intrinsically all about rights is a contention of some, not a globally > shared interpretation of all. One of course could make the argument that > there's a right to information that equates to transparency, a right to > participation, a right to names in one's language, etc...but this hasn't > been debated and agreed in IGF or elsewhere. Insisting that all the WSIS > principles must be seen as a matter of rights could scare off some parties > before the fact and make it hard to persuade them to engage seriously on the > issues. And on the other hand, by conflating the two the rights agenda > seemingly becomes all about the WSIS principles rather than a broader > approach to the range of IG issues. I wouldn't have thought that's what > rights advocates want. " > > I suggest that we change the first part of the referred text from: > > "A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet the > IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant > emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride > what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF." > > To: > > A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet the > IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant > emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride > what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. > > And leave it where it is because of its link to the WSIS principles. > > Please take a careful look for final comments. We should begin a call for > Consensus today! > > Thanks everyone! Ginger > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, > and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going > process of evolutionary > Innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up > the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF > take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on > them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real > policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by > how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If > this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF > is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It > needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable > 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area > of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' > (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental > organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 > c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its > mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing > ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the > Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying > emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of > view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it > is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for > multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional > initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, > particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not > been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already > noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF > should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal > relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate > multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again offers > its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** > > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an > equitable > distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable > and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account > multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the > WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and > assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. > The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s > statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as > a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet > the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was > during > WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF > Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that > include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question > is > posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in > IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your > involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted > in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder > process changed or affected your perspective on any particular > governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill’s edit] improving mutual > understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the preparatory > phase > as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an > opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of > the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of > consultation. > This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF > process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory > governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread > impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > *Membership of the MAG* > > **[Bill suggests we delete]• The MAG should be large enough so that its > members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and > experience, but not so > large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present > circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third > of MAG members should be rotated every year.** > > •** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied[edit - Parminder]**. > Fair civil society representation is necessary > to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with > special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > *Role and Structure of the MAG* > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to > revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be > useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this > function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially > important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to > enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more > than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet > governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. > > • It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through working > groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing > internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]• We also seek greater clarity at this > point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than advising > the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part of the > mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', > 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be > able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can > cohere in the UN Secretary General.** > > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts > of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for > the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary > General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis > Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the > desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for > this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also > expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN > process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its > mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect > and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely > under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the > IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs > to perform its role effectively. > > **In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of > those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with > perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the > discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations.** > > > *Special Advisors and Chair* > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should > be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. > Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized > as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve > effectiveness. > > [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet > policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from > publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To > this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no > other UN organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we > submit: > > **[Delete, as per Bill’s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of > the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement that > it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus on > addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** the IGF > might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely > heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote > participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information > Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of > marginalized and vulnerable groups of > society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. > We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons > with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous > peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who > are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those > concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance > structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative > modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and > activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support > of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception > but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology > support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental > conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the > Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face > meeting. > Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and > for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the > work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, > and > city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration > as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be > announced 360 > days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure > equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and > convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote > Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC > contends that the IGF as a > whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the > international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of > non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities > with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of > poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ > stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 14 23:26:35 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:56:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5D4C6B.3090809@itforchange.net> >> >> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area >> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >> organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 >> c). >> > > I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any clear > success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something > similaR > It is a matter of fact. Not only IGF has not done above, it doesnt have any structure adequate to this purpose. This is also mostly recognized even within the IGF as something to ponder about, and hints about this, and the issues below on clear outcomes were thrown at the concluding session of Hyderabad IGF. In fact much more than hints, the chair seems to have clearly said something to the effect that if wont be enough if we just keep to discussing things and that we may need to move forward. And most participants seemed to be veering around to this viewpoint. (My comments here cover 72b and c and also 72 e and g below). Admittedly, how to do it is still not very clear, but if we start diluting the imperative we certainly wont make any progress. One thing I cant understand is that why we as civil society - generally a voice of the 'outsiders' and the 'less heard' - need to be so diplomatic. Civil society is expected to present clear, rational, and, if needed hard-hitting, critiques. I think we are trying to be unnecessarily coy here, and in any such attempt will miss the point entirely. >> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its >> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing >> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the >> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying >> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. >> > > I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress > Same here. We are not writing a resolution for the UN Secy General to sign. We are writing a civil society statement of review of a key global governance institution. It needs to be clear and bold. We said good things about IGF boldly, and not so good things need to stated as boldly. We need to say clearly what we think and feel. If we are saying 'no significant progress has been made', we need to be able to show what 'less than significant' progress on these specific counts are we speaking about. Fact is that there is no structural form within the IGF right now to do this set of functions, and the IGF is still struggling with this. If civil society doesnt clearly bring this fact out who will. >> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >> >> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of >> view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it >> is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >> >> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed >> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >> >> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional >> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). >> >> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to >> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >> development of the Internet. >> >> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that >> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that >> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, >> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not >> been adequately addressed. >> >> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >> processes at the national, regionalS( level" similar to the IGF. As >> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish >> formal relationships with these initiatives, including >> through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of >> governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >> should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >> appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. >> IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** >> >> >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an >> equitable >> distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable >> and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account >> multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles throughout the >> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and >> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in >> Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any >> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. >> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s >> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as >> a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >> >> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a >> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >> building block for such an effort. >> >> **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet >> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] >> > > I would include this but happy to go either way > >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize >> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of >> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should >> govern the >> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >> acted as a catalyst for change? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of >> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was >> during >> WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF >> Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that >> include business, government, academia and civil society working >> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >> > > >> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >> question is >> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on >> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or >> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in >> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder >> groups. >> >> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >> involvement in >> IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your >> involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted >> in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder >> process changed or affected your perspective on any particular >> governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. >> >> The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill¹s edit] improving mutual >> understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the >> preparatory phase >> as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >> opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of >> the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of >> consultation. >> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF >> process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory >> governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread >> impact. >> >> >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> >> >> *Membership of the MAG* >> >> **[Bill suggests we delete]EUR The MAG should be large enough so that its >> members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity >> and experience, but not so >> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present >> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >> third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** >> >> > I agree lets delete > > >> EUR** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >> remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is >> necessary >> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> EUR We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >> representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >> EUR When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >> with special >> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >> >> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >> >> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time >> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >> >> EUR One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the >> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are >> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG >> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively >> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS >> mandate. >> >> EUR It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through working >> groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set >> of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >> >> **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]EUR We also seek greater clarity at >> this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than >> advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part >> of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying >> issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, >> needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that >> these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** >> > > >> EUR MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph >> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the >> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >> >> EUR IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up >> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >> >> >> *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* >> >> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of >> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with >> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >> >> **In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >> of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries >> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct >> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory >> consultations.** >> >> >> *Special Advisors and Chair* >> >> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for >> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should >> be kept within a reasonable limit. >> >> >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for >> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to >> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to >> improve effectiveness. >> >> [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >> Internet >> policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more >> participative and democratic. >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for >> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding >> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions >> effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To >> this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no >> other UN organization in the IGF's management. >> >> >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> >> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >> we submit: >> >> **[Delete, as per Bill¹s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of >> the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement >> that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus >> on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** >> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive >> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current >> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of >> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >> remote participation including transcription and archiving. >> >> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the >> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of >> society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. >> We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons >> with disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous >> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who >> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those >> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance >> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative >> modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support >> of broad based economic and social development. >> >> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s >> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be >> appropriate for the >> Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face >> meeting. >> Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance >> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and >> for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the >> work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >> >> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >> more clearly >> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >> options, and >> city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration >> as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should >> be announced 360 >> days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to >> ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is >> competitive and convenient. >> >> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >> support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be >> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the >> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >> >> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >> contends that the IGF as a >> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >> > > >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >> >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ >> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 15 00:02:04 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:32:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5D54BC.7020707@itforchange.net> Ian Peter wrote: > One more comment - > > The text includes > > >> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the >> long term it does not prove its value to the international community >> by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements >> on Internet public policy issues. >> > > BILL DRAKE COMMENTED > "Over the years many IGC members have argued against this but are not > participating in this discussion now. Are we going to go ahead and > say this on the "you snooze, you lose" principle? > > I certainly do not support the proposition that the IGF can only prove > its value through recommendations." > > While being ambivalent about whether we should include something about non > binding statements or not, I certainly don't think that IGF can only prove > its value through recommendations so I agree this needs to be better > expressed if we include something here and would also oppose the current wording > Para 72 g is clear about IGF producing recommendations when appropriate, and others part of 72 clearly suggest some such function. The point here is, are we against this part of the mandate. Question 1 refers to whether IGF has been able to fulfill its mandate given by TA. The term non-binding is there only to make clear that the outputs of IGF are not considered binding by anyone, and since the TA speaks of the IGF as a non-binding forum. I dont see what could the meaning of non-binding if it was in any case never supposed to produce any output at all. In this ambivalence we as a key civil society group will only be furthering the cause of the larger design of dominant forces to scuttle the achievement of the full potential of the IGF, and enabling its soft normative functions in influencing policy making in this area. These functions go much beyond providing an annual venue for a lot of different people to meet and talk in a largely unstructured way. I am very sure that this was not the only intention in mandating the IGF. Thats the basic question we have to examine and respond to. I also am not able to understand that why civil society, of all stakeholders, should be so keen to undercut the 'powers' and 'weightiness' of the only legitimate global policy related forum in this arena (or perhaps in any) which is constitutively multistakeholder, aiming at even lower levels than the explicit wordings of its mandate. Whatever comes out of the IGF, we know that it will always have a good enough part of civil society in it. This is not true of any other forum, to which all the 'power' (i only mean soft power here) abdicated by the IGF will move. ITU, for good reasons, do not want a strong IGF, now China also doesnt. Great for them if we tag along, they will be quite amused. In the real world of politics and advocacy the good intentions behind what we say or do doesnt matter, only the effect of what we say and do matters. It is for us to seek to develop IGF towards an institution which can have a real influence on the global policy making, in protection of public interest, or to keep it as it is. Lets not delude ourselves, it is still largely shadow boxing at the IGF, it hasnt done anything till now. The struggle is about what structural shape it can take; thats what has been happening at the IGF in the last 4 years. Most dominant forces are for weakening it, keeping it as a talk shop which they can then conveniently ignore. And they are working really hard on it. We need to know which side we are on. parminder > But on the bigger question - do we want to suggest development of > mechanisms for producing non binding statements? I suspect we are divided > here but it would be good to have a few comments, particularly from those > who do not think this is a good idea, so we can decide whether anything > along these lines should be included. > > > > On 15/07/09 7:10 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > >> A few comments below (very few) >> >> >> >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >>> the Tunis Agenda? >>> >>> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically >>> set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are >>> contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet >>> governance, >>> and specifically about public policy-making in this area. >>> >>> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its >>> way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on >>> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going >>> process of evolutionary >>> Innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up >>> the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF >>> take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on >>> them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real >>> policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by >>> how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If >>> this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF >>> is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It >>> needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable >>> 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most >>> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >>> processes of real policy making. >>> >>> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area >>> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >>> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 >>> c). >>> >> I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any clear >> success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something >> similaR >> >>> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its >>> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing >>> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the >>> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying >>> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. >>> >> I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress >> >>> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >>> >>> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >>> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of >>> view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it >>> is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >>> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >>> >>> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >>> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed >>> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >>> >>> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >>> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >>> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional >>> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). >>> >>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >>> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to >>> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >>> development of the Internet. >>> >>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >>> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >>> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >>> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that >>> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that >>> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, >>> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not >>> been adequately addressed. >>> >>> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >>> processes at the national, regionalS( level" similar to the IGF. As >>> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >>> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish >>> formal relationships with these initiatives, including >>> through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of >>> governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >>> should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >>> appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. >>> IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** >>> >>> >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> >>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be >>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >>> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an >>> equitable >>> distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable >>> and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account >>> multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles throughout the >>> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and >>> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in >>> Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any >>> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. >>> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >>> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s >>> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as >>> a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >>> >>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >>> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >>> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a >>> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >>> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >>> building block for such an effort. >>> >>> **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet >>> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >>> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >>> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] >>> >> I would include this but happy to go either way >> >>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize >>> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >>> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >>> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >>> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of >>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>> >>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >>> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >>> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should >>> govern the >>> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>> >>> >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >>> acted as a catalyst for change? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of >>> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >>> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was >>> during >>> WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF >>> Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that >>> include business, government, academia and civil society working >>> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >>> >>> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >>> question is >>> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on >>> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or >>> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in >>> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder >>> groups. >>> >>> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >>> involvement in >>> IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your >>> involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted >>> in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder >>> process changed or affected your perspective on any particular >>> governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill¹s edit] improving mutual >>> understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the >>> preparatory phase >>> as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >>> opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of >>> the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of >>> consultation. >>> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF >>> process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory >>> governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread >>> impact. >>> >>> >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >>> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>> >>> >>> *Membership of the MAG* >>> >>> **[Bill suggests we delete]EUR The MAG should be large enough so that its >>> members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity >>> and experience, but not so >>> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present >>> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >>> third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** >>> >>> >> I agree lets delete >> >> >>> EUR** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >>> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >>> remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is >>> necessary >>> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >>> EUR We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >>> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >>> representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >>> EUR When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >>> with special >>> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >>> >>> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >>> >>> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time >>> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >>> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >>> >>> EUR One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the >>> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >>> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >>> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >>> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are >>> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >>> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG >>> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively >>> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS >>> mandate. >>> >>> EUR It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through working >>> groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set >>> of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >>> >>> **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]EUR We also seek greater clarity at >>> this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than >>> advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part >>> of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying >>> issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, >>> needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that >>> these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** >>> >>> EUR MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >>> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >>> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >>> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph >>> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the >>> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >>> >>> EUR IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >>> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up >>> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >>> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >>> >>> >>> *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* >>> >>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >>> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >>> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >>> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >>> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of >>> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with >>> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >>> >>> **In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >>> of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries >>> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct >>> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory >>> consultations.** >>> >>> >>> *Special Advisors and Chair* >>> >>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >>> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >>> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for >>> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should >>> be kept within a reasonable limit. >>> >>> >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>> >>> **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to >>> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to >>> improve effectiveness. >>> >>> [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. >>> >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >>> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >>> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >>> >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >>> Internet >>> policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more >>> participative and democratic. >>> >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for >>> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding >>> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions >>> effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To >>> this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no >>> other UN organization in the IGF's management. >>> >>> >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>> processes? >>> >>> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >>> we submit: >>> >>> **[Delete, as per Bill¹s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of >>> the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement >>> that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus >>> on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** >>> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive >>> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current >>> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of >>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >>> remote participation including transcription and archiving. >>> >>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the >>> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >>> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of >>> society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >>> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. >>> We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons >>> with disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous >>> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who >>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those >>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance >>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative >>> modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >>> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support >>> of broad based economic and social development. >>> >>> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >>> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s >>> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >>> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >>> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be >>> appropriate for the >>> Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face >>> meeting. >>> Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance >>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >>> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and >>> for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the >>> work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >>> >>> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >>> more clearly >>> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >>> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >>> options, and >>> city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration >>> as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should >>> be announced 360 >>> days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to >>> ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is >>> competitive and convenient. >>> >>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >>> support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >>> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be >>> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the >>> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >>> >>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >>> contends that the IGF as a >>> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >>> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >>> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >>> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >>> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >>> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >>> >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >>> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ >>> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jul 15 01:01:43 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:01:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f0907141832k10e82c14g154e564e92aff5e1@mail.gmail.com> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <4ca4162f0907141832k10e82c14g154e564e92aff5e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <788E9C37-3A3E-4FF6-8A04-5273C83DF9B7@ciroap.org> On 15/07/2009, at 9:32 AM, Roxana Goldstein wrote: > I would like to suggest to add at point 7: > - the need of translation of the material, documents, etc., to as > many languages as possible > - the need to continue working in the improvement of the > participatory methodology, having as objective to assure equal > opportunities for the participation, incidence and appropriation of > the IGF for all -specially those of developing and under-developed > countries and minoritarian groups-. > > And of course, I would like to add me and the organization I work at > to the list of those who agree with and support this document -if > possible-. Whilst these are important points, I think broadening participation has been covered well already. As to the retention of "unconditional" in Shiva's text I don't think it has passed the test of consensus. Apart from that I do agree with Parminder that we should not at this stage water the statement down by including new qualifying words like "may need", "significant", etc, or by going soft on non-binding outputs. Our opponents don't mince their words ("We don't think the IGF should continue"), so why should we? -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jul 15 03:11:46 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:11:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5D4C6B.3090809@itforchange.net> References: <4A5D4C6B.3090809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5D8132.9000900@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > > >>> >>> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area >>> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >>> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 >>> c). >>> >> >> I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any clear >> success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something >> similaR >> > It is a matter of fact. Facts is one issue to take into account, the context of evaluation is another. No doubt, there will be no lack of harsh reviews. While I fully agree that we have to mention the areas where the IGF hasn't done enough and needs to do more. Yet, we are all aware that this is not a matter of laziness or lack of care but often due to a lack of consensus among the MAG. I support Ian's 2 softening suggestions. jeanette Not only IGF has not done above, it doesnt have > any structure adequate to this purpose. This is also mostly recognized > even within the IGF as something to ponder about, and hints about this, > and the issues below on clear outcomes were thrown at the concluding > session of Hyderabad IGF. In fact much more than hints, the chair seems > to have clearly said something to the effect that if wont be enough if > we just keep to discussing things and that we may need to move forward. > And most participants seemed to be veering around to this viewpoint. (My > comments here cover 72b and c and also 72 e and g below). > > Admittedly, how to do it is still not very clear, but if we start > diluting the imperative we certainly wont make any progress. One thing I > cant understand is that why we as civil society - generally a voice of > the 'outsiders' and the 'less heard' - need to be so diplomatic. Civil > society is expected to present clear, rational, and, if needed > hard-hitting, critiques. I think we are trying to be unnecessarily coy > here, and in any such attempt will miss the point entirely. > >>> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its >>> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing >>> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the >>> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying >>> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. >>> >> >> I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress >> > > Same here. We are not writing a resolution for the UN Secy General to > sign. We are writing a civil society statement of review of a key global > governance institution. It needs to be clear and bold. We said good > things about IGF boldly, and not so good things need to stated as > boldly. We need to say clearly what we think and feel. If we are saying > 'no significant progress has been made', we need to be able to show what > 'less than significant' progress on these specific counts are we > speaking about. Fact is that there is no structural form within the IGF > right now to do this set of functions, and the IGF is still struggling > with this. If civil society doesnt clearly bring this fact out who will. > > >>> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >>> >>> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >>> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of >>> view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it >>> is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >>> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >>> >>> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >>> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed >>> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >>> >>> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >>> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >>> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional >>> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). >>> >>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >>> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to >>> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >>> development of the Internet. >>> >>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >>> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >>> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >>> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that >>> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that >>> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, >>> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not >>> been adequately addressed. >>> >>> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >>> processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As >>> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >>> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish >>> formal relationships with these initiatives, including >>> through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of >>> governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >>> should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >>> appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. >>> IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** >>> >>> >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> >>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be >>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >>> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an >>> equitable >>> distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable >>> and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account >>> multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles throughout the >>> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and >>> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in >>> Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any >>> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. >>> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >>> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s >>> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as >>> a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >>> >>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >>> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >>> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a >>> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >>> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >>> building block for such an effort. >>> >>> **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet >>> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >>> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >>> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] >>> >> >> I would include this but happy to go either way >> >>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize >>> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >>> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >>> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >>> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of >>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>> >>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >>> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >>> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should >>> govern the >>> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>> >>> >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >>> acted as a catalyst for change? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of >>> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >>> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was >>> during >>> WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF >>> Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that >>> include business, government, academia and civil society working >>> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >>> >> >> >>> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >>> question is >>> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on >>> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or >>> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in >>> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder >>> groups. >>> >>> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >>> involvement in >>> IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your >>> involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted >>> in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder >>> process changed or affected your perspective on any particular >>> governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill¹s edit] improving mutual >>> understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the >>> preparatory phase >>> as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >>> opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of >>> the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of >>> consultation. >>> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF >>> process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory >>> governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread >>> impact. >>> >>> >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >>> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>> >>> >>> *Membership of the MAG* >>> >>> **[Bill suggests we delete]€ The MAG should be large enough so that its >>> members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity >>> and experience, but not so >>> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present >>> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >>> third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** >>> >>> >> I agree lets delete >> >> >>> €** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >>> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >>> remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is >>> necessary >>> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >>> € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >>> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >>> representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >>> € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >>> with special >>> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >>> >>> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >>> >>> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time >>> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >>> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >>> >>> € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the >>> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >>> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >>> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >>> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are >>> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >>> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG >>> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively >>> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS >>> mandate. >>> >>> € It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through working >>> groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set >>> of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >>> >>> **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]€ We also seek greater clarity at >>> this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than >>> advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part >>> of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying >>> issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, >>> needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that >>> these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** >>> >> >> >>> € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >>> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >>> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >>> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph >>> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the >>> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >>> >>> € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >>> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up >>> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >>> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >>> >>> >>> *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* >>> >>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >>> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >>> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >>> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >>> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of >>> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with >>> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >>> >>> **In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >>> of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries >>> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct >>> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory >>> consultations.** >>> >>> >>> *Special Advisors and Chair* >>> >>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >>> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >>> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for >>> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should >>> be kept within a reasonable limit. >>> >>> >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>> >>> **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to >>> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to >>> improve effectiveness. >>> >>> [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. >>> >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >>> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >>> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >>> >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >>> Internet >>> policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more >>> participative and democratic. >>> >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for >>> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding >>> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions >>> effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To >>> this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no >>> other UN organization in the IGF's management. >>> >>> >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>> processes? >>> >>> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >>> we submit: >>> >>> **[Delete, as per Bill¹s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of >>> the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement >>> that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus >>> on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** >>> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive >>> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current >>> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of >>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >>> remote participation including transcription and archiving. >>> >>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the >>> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >>> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of >>> society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >>> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. >>> We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons >>> with disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous >>> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who >>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those >>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance >>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative >>> modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >>> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support >>> of broad based economic and social development. >>> >>> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >>> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s >>> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >>> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >>> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be >>> appropriate for the >>> Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face >>> meeting. >>> Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance >>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >>> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and >>> for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the >>> work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >>> >>> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >>> more clearly >>> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >>> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >>> options, and >>> city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration >>> as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should >>> be announced 360 >>> days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to >>> ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is >>> competitive and convenient. >>> >>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >>> support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >>> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be >>> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the >>> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >>> >>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >>> contends that the IGF as a >>> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >>> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >>> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >>> >> >> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >>> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >>> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >>> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >>> >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >>> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ >>> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jul 15 03:15:16 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:15:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5D8204.2080802@wzb.eu> Important point, thank you for bringing this up, Ian. As a compromise, could we perhaps qualify the statement by saying that "some of the caucus members are of the belief that in the long term..."? jeanette Ian Peter wrote: > One more comment - > > The text includes > >> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the >> long term it does not prove its value to the international community >> by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements >> on Internet public policy issues. > > BILL DRAKE COMMENTED > "Over the years many IGC members have argued against this but are not > participating in this discussion now. Are we going to go ahead and > say this on the "you snooze, you lose" principle? > > I certainly do not support the proposition that the IGF can only prove > its value through recommendations." > > While being ambivalent about whether we should include something about non > binding statements or not, I certainly don't think that IGF can only prove > its value through recommendations so I agree this needs to be better > expressed if we include something here and would also oppose the current > wording. > > But on the bigger question - do we want to suggest development of > mechanisms for producing non binding statements? I suspect we are divided > here but it would be good to have a few comments, particularly from those > who do not think this is a good idea, so we can decide whether anything > along these lines should be included. > > > > On 15/07/09 7:10 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > >> A few comments below (very few) >> >> >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >>> the Tunis Agenda? >>> >>> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically >>> set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are >>> contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet >>> governance, >>> and specifically about public policy-making in this area. >>> >>> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its >>> way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on >>> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going >>> process of evolutionary >>> Innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up >>> the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF >>> take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on >>> them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real >>> policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by >>> how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If >>> this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF >>> is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It >>> needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable >>> 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most >>> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >>> processes of real policy making. >>> >>> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area >>> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >>> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 >>> c). >> I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any clear >> success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something >> similaR >>> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its >>> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing >>> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the >>> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying >>> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. >> I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress >>> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >>> >>> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >>> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of >>> view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it >>> is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >>> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >>> >>> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >>> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed >>> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >>> >>> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >>> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >>> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional >>> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). >>> >>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >>> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to >>> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >>> development of the Internet. >>> >>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >>> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >>> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >>> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that >>> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that >>> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, >>> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not >>> been adequately addressed. >>> >>> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >>> processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As >>> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >>> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish >>> formal relationships with these initiatives, including >>> through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of >>> governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >>> should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >>> appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. >>> IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** >>> >>> >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> >>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be >>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >>> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an >>> equitable >>> distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable >>> and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account >>> multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles throughout the >>> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote and >>> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in >>> Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any >>> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. >>> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >>> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s >>> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as >>> a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >>> >>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >>> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >>> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a >>> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >>> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >>> building block for such an effort. >>> >>> **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet >>> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >>> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >>> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] >> I would include this but happy to go either way >>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize >>> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >>> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >>> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >>> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of >>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>> >>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >>> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >>> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should >>> govern the >>> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>> >>> >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >>> acted as a catalyst for change? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of >>> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >>> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was >>> during >>> WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF >>> Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that >>> include business, government, academia and civil society working >>> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >>> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >>> question is >>> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on >>> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or >>> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in >>> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder >>> groups. >>> >>> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >>> involvement in >>> IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your >>> involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted >>> in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder >>> process changed or affected your perspective on any particular >>> governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill¹s edit] improving mutual >>> understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the >>> preparatory phase >>> as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >>> opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process of >>> the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of >>> consultation. >>> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF >>> process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory >>> governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread >>> impact. >>> >>> >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >>> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>> >>> >>> *Membership of the MAG* >>> >>> **[Bill suggests we delete]€ The MAG should be large enough so that its >>> members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity >>> and experience, but not so >>> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present >>> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >>> third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** >>> >> I agree lets delete >> >>> €** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >>> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >>> remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is >>> necessary >>> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >>> € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >>> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >>> representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. >>> € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >>> with special >>> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >>> >>> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >>> >>> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time >>> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >>> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >>> >>> € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the >>> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >>> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >>> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >>> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are >>> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >>> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG >>> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively >>> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS >>> mandate. >>> >>> € It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through working >>> groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set >>> of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >>> >>> **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]€ We also seek greater clarity at >>> this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other than >>> advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some part >>> of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying >>> issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, >>> needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that >>> these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** >>> € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >>> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >>> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >>> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph >>> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the >>> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >>> >>> € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >>> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up >>> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >>> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >>> >>> >>> *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* >>> >>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >>> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >>> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >>> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >>> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of >>> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with >>> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >>> >>> **In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >>> of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries >>> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct >>> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory >>> consultations.** >>> >>> >>> *Special Advisors and Chair* >>> >>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >>> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >>> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for >>> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should >>> be kept within a reasonable limit. >>> >>> >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>> >>> **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum for >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to >>> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to >>> improve effectiveness. >>> >>> [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. >>> >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >>> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >>> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >>> >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >>> Internet >>> policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more >>> participative and democratic. >>> >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However for >>> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding >>> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions >>> effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To >>> this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no >>> other UN organization in the IGF's management. >>> >>> >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>> processes? >>> >>> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >>> we submit: >>> >>> **[Delete, as per Bill¹s suggestion]Since the value and effectiveness of >>> the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement >>> that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should focus >>> on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** >>> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive >>> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current >>> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of >>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >>> remote participation including transcription and archiving. >>> >>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the >>> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >>> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of >>> society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >>> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. >>> We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons >>> with disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous >>> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who >>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those >>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance >>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative >>> modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >>> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support >>> of broad based economic and social development. >>> >>> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >>> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s >>> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >>> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >>> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be >>> appropriate for the >>> Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face >>> meeting. >>> Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance >>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >>> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and >>> for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the >>> work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >>> >>> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >>> more clearly >>> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >>> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >>> options, and >>> city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration >>> as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should >>> be announced 360 >>> days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to >>> ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is >>> competitive and convenient. >>> >>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >>> support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >>> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be >>> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the >>> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >>> >>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >>> contends that the IGF as a >>> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >>> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >>> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >>> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >>> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >>> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >>> >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >>> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ >>> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Jul 15 03:19:45 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:19:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras In-Reply-To: <4A5BACF4.4080106@gmail.com> References: <4A5B163E.3010008@gmail.com> <4A5B1E15.3070405@gmail.com> <4A5B5032.8090109@gmail.com> <4A5B5252.5020301@wzb.eu> <4A5B60A2.1000706@gmail.com> <4A5B6320.3030708@wzb.eu> <4A5B6DDF.4060000@wzb.eu> <4A5B73E9.2020704@gmail.com> <4A5B9EE6.4080602@wzb.eu> <4A5BA13B.50707@gmail.com> <4A5BA26F.2030503@wzb.eu> <4A5BA4E9.1010306@gmail.com> <4A5BAAE4.3040404@wzb.eu> <4A5BACF4.4080106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5676027.47171.1247642384996.JavaMail.www@wwinf2620> Dear all I try as far as possible to stay in touch with the list and the discussions about the content of the document CS representatives officially hand over to the IGF Secretariat, as the expression of our visions and goals in the framework of the Sharm el Cheikh IGF meeting. May be I missed some wordings, but -if it isn't expressly stated in another part of our document- I strongly ask for adding a sentence to the paragraph mentioned by Jeannette. This sentence should refer i.a. to the CS WSIS Declaration(s) for an open, shared and inclusive Internet, that means especially peoples in DCs that are largely lagging behind. Having in mind the necessity for their urgent issues to be addressed in the IGF process and decisions, we the CS representatives ask strongly for funding (in both terms of priority and share) in order to foster the active participation of DCs reprentatives and delegates in the IGF meetings and process. It' our very duty and commitment as well as the expression of our true solidarity, to listen to and help our colleagues (including those of grass-root orgs), especially those from Africa and Latin America, for presenting their views, issues and needs in the IGF process. best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 13/07/09 23:55 > De : "Ginger Paque" > A : "Jeanette Hofmann" > Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Katitza Rodriguez" , "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" , "Michael Gurstein" , "Wolfgang Kleinwächter" , "Parminder" , "Ian Peter" > Objet : Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras > > > So this would read (comments invited): > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation. > > gp > > > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > >> How would the caucus do this? Just by stating it in the questionnaire? > > > > Our responses to the questionnaire will be published on the website > > and they will be reflected in the "synthesis paper that will be > > translated into all six UN languages as an official input into the > > 'consultation with Forum participants' at the Sharm El Sheikh > > meeting." As Parminder said, we can expect that this synthesis paper > > will get some attention. > > > > jeanette > > > >> That is not likely to go anywhere is it? How would be go about > >> carrying this forward? It would be great, but is it possible? I see > >> it as more likely to be a real proposal if the Secretariat applies > >> for/requests the funding. Can someone please help me on this? Thanks. gp > >> > >> Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >>> I agree with Jeanette, > >>> > >>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>> > >>>> In my view, the caucus, not the IGF secretariat, should call upon > >>>> the UN Member States. Lets see what others say. > >>>> je > >>>> > >>>> Ginger Paque wrote: > >>>>> Sorry, my mistake, so we would change the first line to read: > >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > >>>>> apply to **the UN Member States** for substantial funding for IGF > >>>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of > >>>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. > >>>>> Is that correct? > >>>>> Ginger > >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Ginger, what is wrong with Wolfgang's suggestion: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member > >>>>>> States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in > >>>>>> such a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But > >>>>>> UN member states can do this. > >>>>>> > >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > >>>>> apply to the UN Member States for substantial funding for IGF > >>>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of > >>>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. > >>>>>> jeanette > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: > >>>>>>> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to > >>>>>>> continue this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, > >>>>>>> which is the following. Do please comment and suggest revisions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to > >>>>>>> apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF > >>>>>>> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of > >>>>>>> programs to foster greater diversity of participation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) > >>>>>>> Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups > >>>>>>> are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments > >>>>>>> but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further > >>>>>>> expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for > >>>>>>> their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on > >>>>>>> various Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of > >>>>>>> the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic > >>>>>>> regions. We mention in for example: Indigenous peoples > >>>>>>> worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and > >>>>>>> particularly those who are the poorest of > >>>>>>> the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting > >>>>>>> peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an > >>>>>>> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of > >>>>>>> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > >>>>>>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as > >>>>>>> practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a > >>>>>>> primary resource in support of broad-based economic and social > >>>>>>> development. Funding possibilities need to be improved and it > >>>>>>> requires various efforts, but availability of various categories > >>>>>>> of travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by > >>>>>>> those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already > >>>>>>> has made some funds available for representation from Less > >>>>>>> Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible > >>>>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, > >>>>>>> organizations and individual participants) would be several > >>>>>>> times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in > >>>>>>> organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If > >>>>>>> an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of > >>>>>>> the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already being > >>>>>>> spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel support > >>>>>>> to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small > >>>>>>> proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of > >>>>>>> panels and the diversity of participation could be significantly > >>>>>>> improved. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends > >>>>>>> that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by > >>>>>>> grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental > >>>>>>> and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund > >>>>>>> could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel > >>>>>>> speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a > >>>>>>> greater number of participants with special attention to > >>>>>>> participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented > >>>>>>> geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and > >>>>>>> even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an > >>>>>>> individual need). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>>>>>>> As I said before, I support funding the participation of people > >>>>>>>> from least developed countries. I do think that the IGF > >>>>>>>> secretariat should have a reliable funding that ensure > >>>>>>>> independence from private sector donations. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class > >>>>>>>> flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on > >>>>>>>> this latter part, I suggested to omit such details. > >>>>>>>> jeanette > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the > >>>>>>>>> PRESENT realities and the statement stems from a positive > >>>>>>>>> outlook unconstrained by the present situation. Another > >>>>>>>>> million or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way > >>>>>>>>> beyond the reach of the IGF body. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will > >>>>>>>>> find a way to find funds to answer thiso call. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep > >>>>>>>>> the IGF in eternal poverty, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would > >>>>>>>>> like it not mentioned what is funded. The statement is > >>>>>>>>> complete only with such a suggestion and in its present form, > >>>>>>>>> is there anything seriously objectionable with what it says > >>>>>>>>> about enhancing the quality of programs with greater diversity > >>>>>>>>> of participation? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another > >>>>>>>>> California > >>>>>>>>> as Michael G. suggests. > >>>>>>>>> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to > >>>>>>>>> support > >>>>>>>>> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense > >>>>>>>>> to call > >>>>>>>>> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a > >>>>>>>>> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own > >>>>>>>>> functioning. > >>>>>>>>> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money > >>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>> come from or how it could be generated. > >>>>>>>>> jeanette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only > >>>>>>>>> Jeanette who holds this view. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, gp > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ginger Paque wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious > >>>>>>>>> effort at compromise. However, there are still > >>>>>>>>> areas I > >>>>>>>>> cannot agree with. Please consider the following > >>>>>>>>> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for > >>>>>>>>> comments > >>>>>>>>> from others as well: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, > >>>>>>>>> and then > >>>>>>>>> edited by Ginger] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF > >>>>>>>>> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF programs and > >>>>>>>>> participation to further enhance the quality of > >>>>>>>>> programs > >>>>>>>>> with greater diversity of participation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses > >>>>>>>>> listed below. I don't understand why we would want > >>>>>>>>> to "call > >>>>>>>>> upon the IGF Secretariat to > >>>>>>>>> > substantially fund IGF programs and > >>>>>>>>> participation" in > >>>>>>>>> light of the lack of such funds. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> jeanette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There are two aspects to be considered in this > >>>>>>>>> regard: > >>>>>>>>> a) Present IGF participants representing various > >>>>>>>>> stakeholder groups are highly qualified > >>>>>>>>> individuals with > >>>>>>>>> diverse accomplishments but it is also true > >>>>>>>>> that IGF > >>>>>>>>> participation needs to be further expanded to > >>>>>>>>> include > >>>>>>>>> more Civil Society participants known for their > >>>>>>>>> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF > >>>>>>>>> arena on > >>>>>>>>> various Civil Society causes. Business leaders > >>>>>>>>> who are > >>>>>>>>> otherwise committed to social and other governance > >>>>>>>>> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all > >>>>>>>>> governments > >>>>>>>>> are represented at the IGF. And b) The present > >>>>>>>>> attendees > >>>>>>>>> of the IGF do not represent all participant > >>>>>>>>> segments and > >>>>>>>>> geographic regions. This needs to be improved > >>>>>>>>> and it > >>>>>>>>> requires various efforts, but availability of > >>>>>>>>> various > >>>>>>>>> categories of travel grants for participants > >>>>>>>>> may help > >>>>>>>>> improve participation by those not attending > >>>>>>>>> the IGF for > >>>>>>>>> want of funds. IGF already has made some funds > >>>>>>>>> available > >>>>>>>>> for representation from Less Developed > >>>>>>>>> Countries, but > >>>>>>>>> such funding achieves a limited objective. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, > >>>>>>>>> participating > >>>>>>>>> Governments, organizations and individual > >>>>>>>>> participants) > >>>>>>>>> would be several times that of the actual > >>>>>>>>> outflow from > >>>>>>>>> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as > >>>>>>>>> reflected > >>>>>>>>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist > >>>>>>>>> estimates > >>>>>>>>> the total visible and invisible costs of the > >>>>>>>>> IGF, it > >>>>>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is already > >>>>>>>>> spent. With > >>>>>>>>> an increment in funding for travel support to > >>>>>>>>> panel > >>>>>>>>> speaker and participants, which would amount to > >>>>>>>>> a small > >>>>>>>>> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the > >>>>>>>>> quality of > >>>>>>>>> panels and the diversity of participation could > >>>>>>>>> be improved. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance > >>>>>>>>> Caucus > >>>>>>>>> recommends that the IGF should consider budgetary > >>>>>>>>> allocations supported by grants from business, > >>>>>>>>> governments, well funded non-governmental and > >>>>>>>>> international organizations and the United > >>>>>>>>> Nations. The > >>>>>>>>> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead > >>>>>>>>> participants > >>>>>>>>> (panel speakers, program organizers), full and > >>>>>>>>> partial > >>>>>>>>> fellowships to a greater number of participants > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> special attention to participants from > >>>>>>>>> unrepresented > >>>>>>>>> categories (unrepresented geographic regions > >>>>>>>>> and/or > >>>>>>>>> unrepresented participant segments and even to > >>>>>>>>> those > >>>>>>>>> from affluent, represented regions if there is an > >>>>>>>>> individual need ). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more > >>>>>>>>> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who > >>>>>>>>> would add > >>>>>>>>> further value to the IGF. It is especially > >>>>>>>>> recommended > >>>>>>>>> that such a fund carry no link as to the > >>>>>>>>> positions or > >>>>>>>>> content proposed by the presenter (as opposed > >>>>>>>>> to a grant > >>>>>>>>> from a business trust with stated or implied > >>>>>>>>> conditions > >>>>>>>>> about the positions to be taken). It is > >>>>>>>>> recommended that > >>>>>>>>> the IGF create a fund large enough to have > >>>>>>>>> significant > >>>>>>>>> impact in further enhancing quality and > >>>>>>>>> diversity of > >>>>>>>>> participation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Have revised the statement and the changes > >>>>>>>>> made are > >>>>>>>>> highlighted. This mail is best viewed with > >>>>>>>>> html / > >>>>>>>>> mime settings. ( for the convenience of > >>>>>>>>> those whose > >>>>>>>>> mail settings are plain text, I am > >>>>>>>>> attaching the > >>>>>>>>> text as a PDF file which would show the > >>>>>>>>> highlighted > >>>>>>>>> changes ) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls > >>>>>>>>> upon the IGF > >>>>>>>>> Secretariat to > >>>>>>>>> fund the IGF programs and participation > >>>>>>>>> substantially and > >>>>>>>>> significantly to further enhance the > >>>>>>>>> quality of > >>>>>>>>> programs with > >>>>>>>>> greater diversity of participation. * > >>>>>>>>> *There are > >>>>>>>>> two aspects to be > >>>>>>>>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ > >>>>>>>>> present IGF > >>>>>>>>> participants > >>>>>>>>> representing various stakeholder groups are > >>>>>>>>> highly qualified > >>>>>>>>> individuals with diverse accomplishments > >>>>>>>>> but it > >>>>>>>>> is also true that > >>>>>>>>> IGF participation needs to be further > >>>>>>>>> expanded to > >>>>>>>>> invite and > >>>>>>>>> include more Civil Society participants > >>>>>>>>> known for > >>>>>>>>> their commitment > >>>>>>>>> and accomplishments outside the IGF > >>>>>>>>> arena on > >>>>>>>>> various Civil Society > >>>>>>>>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise > >>>>>>>>> committed to social > >>>>>>>>> and other governance issues are not seen > >>>>>>>>> at the > >>>>>>>>> IGF, and not all > >>>>>>>>> governments are represented at the IGF ( > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> though not for > >>>>>>>>> financial reasons, the present > >>>>>>>>> participants from > >>>>>>>>> Government are > >>>>>>>>> not represented on a high enough level ) > >>>>>>>>> - [ this > >>>>>>>>> sentence in > >>>>>>>>> parenthesis may be deleted if > >>>>>>>>> unnecessary as it > >>>>>>>>> is not directly > >>>>>>>>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present > >>>>>>>>> participants of the IGF > >>>>>>>>> do not represent all participant > >>>>>>>>> segments and > >>>>>>>>> geographic regions. > >>>>>>>>> This needs to be improved and it > >>>>>>>>> requires various > >>>>>>>>> efforts, but > >>>>>>>>> availability of various categories of > >>>>>>>>> Travel > >>>>>>>>> Grants for different > >>>>>>>>> classes of participants may help improve > >>>>>>>>> participation by those > >>>>>>>>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. > >>>>>>>>> IGF > >>>>>>>>> already has made some > >>>>>>>>> funds available for representation from > >>>>>>>>> Less > >>>>>>>>> Developed Countries, > >>>>>>>>> but such funding achieves a limited > >>>>>>>>> objective. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The true cost of the IGF (including all > >>>>>>>>> visible > >>>>>>>>> and invisible > >>>>>>>>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating > >>>>>>>>> Governments, > >>>>>>>>> organizations and individual > >>>>>>>>> participants) would > >>>>>>>>> be several times > >>>>>>>>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF > >>>>>>>>> Secretariat in organizing > >>>>>>>>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of > >>>>>>>>> accounts. If an economist > >>>>>>>>> estimates the total visible and > >>>>>>>>> invisible costs > >>>>>>>>> of the IGF, it > >>>>>>>>> would be an enormous sum, which is > >>>>>>>>> already spent. > >>>>>>>>> For want of a > >>>>>>>>> marginal allocation for travel support > >>>>>>>>> to panel > >>>>>>>>> speaker and > >>>>>>>>> participants, which would amount to a small > >>>>>>>>> proportion of the true > >>>>>>>>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels > >>>>>>>>> and the > >>>>>>>>> diversity of > >>>>>>>>> participation are compromised. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> With this rationale, the Internet > >>>>>>>>> Governance > >>>>>>>>> Caucus recommends > >>>>>>>>> that the IGF should consider liberal > >>>>>>>>> budgetary > >>>>>>>>> allocations > >>>>>>>>> supported by unconditional grants from > >>>>>>>>> business, > >>>>>>>>> governments, well > >>>>>>>>> funded non-governmental and international > >>>>>>>>> organizations and the > >>>>>>>>> United Nations. The fund may extend > >>>>>>>>> uncompromising, comfortable > >>>>>>>>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead > >>>>>>>>> participants (panel > >>>>>>>>> speakers, program organizers, who are > >>>>>>>>> largely > >>>>>>>>> invitees who are > >>>>>>>>> required to be well-received for > >>>>>>>>> participation), > >>>>>>>>> full and partial > >>>>>>>>> fellowships to a large number of > >>>>>>>>> participants > >>>>>>>>> with special > >>>>>>>>> attention to participants from > >>>>>>>>> unrepresented > >>>>>>>>> categories > >>>>>>>>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or > >>>>>>>>> unrepresented participant > >>>>>>>>> segments and even to those from affluent, > >>>>>>>>> represented regions if > >>>>>>>>> there is an individual need ). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to > >>>>>>>>> bring in > >>>>>>>>> really diverse > >>>>>>>>> opinions to the IGF from experts who > >>>>>>>>> would add > >>>>>>>>> further value to > >>>>>>>>> the IGF. It is especially recommended > >>>>>>>>> that such a > >>>>>>>>> fund may be > >>>>>>>>> built up from contributions that are > >>>>>>>>> unconditional (as opposed to > >>>>>>>>> a grant from a business trust with > >>>>>>>>> stated or > >>>>>>>>> implied conditions > >>>>>>>>> about the positions to be taken; > >>>>>>>>> 'unconditional' > >>>>>>>>> does not imply > >>>>>>>>> that funds may have to be disbursed > >>>>>>>>> without even > >>>>>>>>> the basic > >>>>>>>>> conditions that the recipient should > >>>>>>>>> attend the > >>>>>>>>> IGF and attend the > >>>>>>>>> sessions etc. In this context > >>>>>>>>> "unconditional" > >>>>>>>>> means something > >>>>>>>>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel > >>>>>>>>> Grants whereby IGF > >>>>>>>>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, > >>>>>>>>> Governments, > >>>>>>>>> International Organizations, well funded > >>>>>>>>> NGOs and > >>>>>>>>> UN with no > >>>>>>>>> implied conditions on the positions to > >>>>>>>>> be taken > >>>>>>>>> by participants*)* > >>>>>>>>> and may be awarded to panelists and > >>>>>>>>> participants > >>>>>>>>> unconditionally. > >>>>>>>>> It is recommended that the IGF create a > >>>>>>>>> fund > >>>>>>>>> large enough to have > >>>>>>>>> significant impact in further enhancing > >>>>>>>>> quality > >>>>>>>>> and diversity of > >>>>>>>>> participation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >>>>>>>>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > >>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > >>>>>>>>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, > >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian > >>>>>>>>> Muthusamy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello Ginger > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Will have just a little time to spend on > >>>>>>>>> this, > >>>>>>>>> will review the > >>>>>>>>> complete questionnaire comments, and > >>>>>>>>> reword the > >>>>>>>>> Q6 comment, but > >>>>>>>>> don't really have a lot of time today. > >>>>>>>>> Leaving > >>>>>>>>> for the city in a > >>>>>>>>> few hours for a short trip, will find > >>>>>>>>> some time > >>>>>>>>> to work tomorrow > >>>>>>>>> as well, but not tonight. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, > >>>>>>>>> rather > >>>>>>>>> than as an > >>>>>>>>> independent proposal, which I could have > >>>>>>>>> sent it > >>>>>>>>> on my own but > >>>>>>>>> preferred not to. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Shiva. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger > >>>>>>>>> Paque > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Shiva, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I was referring to Q6, as several of > >>>>>>>>> us - > >>>>>>>>> including myself, > >>>>>>>>> and Ian, as well as Michael and > >>>>>>>>> others, are > >>>>>>>>> not yet satisfied > >>>>>>>>> with the wording on the funding > >>>>>>>>> concept. You > >>>>>>>>> are welcome to > >>>>>>>>> continue the discussion and see if > >>>>>>>>> you can > >>>>>>>>> reach a consensus > >>>>>>>>> on it, but I suspect that by the time > >>>>>>>>> everyone is happy, the > >>>>>>>>> statement won't say much of > >>>>>>>>> anything. Could > >>>>>>>>> you review the > >>>>>>>>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer > >>>>>>>>> to the > >>>>>>>>> complete > >>>>>>>>> questionnaire draft, and tell us > >>>>>>>>> what you think? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks. I appreciate your > >>>>>>>>> willingness to discuss. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Ginger > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello Ginger > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You would like this submitted as > >>>>>>>>> my own > >>>>>>>>> comment, rather > >>>>>>>>> than as an IGC statement? Is > >>>>>>>>> this only on > >>>>>>>>> Q6 or does it > >>>>>>>>> also apply to Q3? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There were further exchanges > >>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>> Gurstein and me, and > >>>>>>>>> the misunderstanding are being > >>>>>>>>> clarified. > >>>>>>>>> Would you really > >>>>>>>>> feel that the entire statement > >>>>>>>>> has to be > >>>>>>>>> dropped as > >>>>>>>>> comment from IGC? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, > >>>>>>>>> Ginger Paque > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Shiva, As there seems to be > >>>>>>>>> quite a > >>>>>>>>> bit of controversy > >>>>>>>>> about this > >>>>>>>>> concept and wording, and we > >>>>>>>>> are very > >>>>>>>>> short on time, I > >>>>>>>>> wonder if we > >>>>>>>>> could continue this > >>>>>>>>> discussion after > >>>>>>>>> the questionnaire is > >>>>>>>>> submitted, perhaps for > >>>>>>>>> comments to be > >>>>>>>>> submitted by the > >>>>>>>>> August > >>>>>>>>> deadline? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, you could > >>>>>>>>> submit your > >>>>>>>>> own comment, > >>>>>>>>> which would > >>>>>>>>> give you more freedom to make > >>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>> point. Is that > >>>>>>>>> acceptable to you? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Ginger > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello Michael Gurstein > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> A quick reply and a > >>>>>>>>> little more later. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at > >>>>>>>>> 6:12 AM, > >>>>>>>>> Michael Gurstein > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original > >>>>>>>>> Message----- > >>>>>>>>> *From:* > >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian > >>>>>>>>> Muthusamy > >>>>>>>>> [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>] > >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, > >>>>>>>>> July 12, > >>>>>>>>> 2009 6:18 PM > >>>>>>>>> *To:* > >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>; > >>>>>>>>> Michael Gurstein > >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: > >>>>>>>>> [governance] > >>>>>>>>> Question 6: > >>>>>>>>> Comments on Siva's > >>>>>>>>> proposed paras > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello Michael > >>>>>>>>> Gurstein, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, > >>>>>>>>> 2009 at > >>>>>>>>> 2:50 AM, Michael > >>>>>>>>> Gurstein > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "The Internet > >>>>>>>>> Governance Caucus calls > >>>>>>>>> upon the IGF > >>>>>>>>> Secretariat to > >>>>>>>>> fund the > >>>>>>>>> IGF programs and > >>>>>>>>> participation > >>>>>>>>> substantially and > >>>>>>>>> significantly to > >>>>>>>>> further enhance the > >>>>>>>>> quality of > >>>>>>>>> programs > >>>>>>>>> with greater > >>>>>>>>> diversity of > >>>>>>>>> participation" > >>>>>>>>> sounds > >>>>>>>>> better? YES... > >>>>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There are two > >>>>>>>>> aspects > >>>>>>>>> to be considered > >>>>>>>>> in this > >>>>>>>>> regard: a) > >>>>>>>>> The absence or > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> non-participation of > >>>>>>>>> some of the world's > >>>>>>>>> most renowned > >>>>>>>>> Civil Society > >>>>>>>>> opinion > >>>>>>>>> leaders is > >>>>>>>>> noticeable; > >>>>>>>>> Business Leaders > >>>>>>>>> who are > >>>>>>>>> otherwise > >>>>>>>>> committed to > >>>>>>>>> social and other > >>>>>>>>> governance issues off > >>>>>>>>> IGF are not > >>>>>>>>> seen at > >>>>>>>>> the IGF; > >>>>>>>>> Governments > >>>>>>>>> are not > >>>>>>>>> represented on a > >>>>>>>>> level high enough > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT > >>>>>>>>> EXACTLY > >>>>>>>>> IS MEANT BY > >>>>>>>>> "RENOWNED CIVIL > >>>>>>>>> SOCIETY > >>>>>>>>> OPINION LEADERS" > >>>>>>>>> (IN SOME > >>>>>>>>> CIRCLES THERE > >>>>>>>>> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND > >>>>>>>>> PROBABLY MORE > >>>>>>>>> INTERNAL > >>>>>>>>> CONTRADITIONS > >>>>>>>>> IN THAT > >>>>>>>>> SIMPLE STATEMENT > >>>>>>>>> AND CERTAINLY > >>>>>>>>> NEITHER WE NOR > >>>>>>>>> THE > >>>>>>>>> SECRETARIAT > >>>>>>>>> SHOULD BE > >>>>>>>>> EXPECTED TO > >>>>>>>>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE > >>>>>>>>> "RENOWNED" > >>>>>>>>> FOLKS MIGHT > >>>>>>>>> BE. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> AS WELL, ARE > >>>>>>>>> WE LOOKING > >>>>>>>>> FOR CIVIL > >>>>>>>>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR > >>>>>>>>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL > >>>>>>>>> SOCIETY > >>>>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS > >>>>>>>>> IN LEADERSHIP > >>>>>>>>> POSITIONS, OR > >>>>>>>>> ARE WE > >>>>>>>>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL > >>>>>>>>> SOCIETY > >>>>>>>>> SPOKESPEOPLE > >>>>>>>>> WHO UNDERSTAND IG > >>>>>>>>> ISSUES, OR > >>>>>>>>> ARE WE > >>>>>>>>> LOOKING FOR > >>>>>>>>> LEADERS > >>>>>>>>> OF RESPONSIBLE > >>>>>>>>> REPRESENTATIVE CS > >>>>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO > >>>>>>>>> HAVE A > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES > >>>>>>>>> (EACH OF THESE > >>>>>>>>> CATEGORIES IS > >>>>>>>>> PROBABLY > >>>>>>>>> DISCREET AND > >>>>>>>>> COULD BE INCLUDED > >>>>>>>>> AMBIGUOUSLY > >>>>>>>>> UNDER > >>>>>>>>> YOUR STATEMENT. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> IF BIZ LEADERS > >>>>>>>>> THINK IT > >>>>>>>>> IS OF SUFFICIENT > >>>>>>>>> IMPORTANCE > >>>>>>>>> THEY'LL LIKELY > >>>>>>>>> COME, IF > >>>>>>>>> NOT, NOT AND > >>>>>>>>> NOT MUCH > >>>>>>>>> WE OR THE > >>>>>>>>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO > >>>>>>>>> ABOUT > >>>>>>>>> THAT AND > >>>>>>>>> SIMILARLY > >>>>>>>>> WITH GOVERNMENTS. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I THINK THIS PARA > >>>>>>>>> SHOULD BE DROPPED... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I am sorry, I > >>>>>>>>> don't agree > >>>>>>>>> with your negative > >>>>>>>>> interpretation of > >>>>>>>>> such a positive > >>>>>>>>> suggestion. > >>>>>>>>> Are we to assert > >>>>>>>>> that the > >>>>>>>>> present > >>>>>>>>> participants > >>>>>>>>> constitute a > >>>>>>>>> complete, > >>>>>>>>> representative, and > >>>>>>>>> ultimate group > >>>>>>>>> ? NO, BUT > >>>>>>>>> I'M HAVING > >>>>>>>>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI > >>>>>>>>> KLEIN OR > >>>>>>>>> VENDANA > >>>>>>>>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO > >>>>>>>>> CONTRIBUTE EITHER... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I will have to browse a > >>>>>>>>> little to > >>>>>>>>> learn about Naomi > >>>>>>>>> Klein; > >>>>>>>>> Vendana Shiva is an > >>>>>>>>> Indian name > >>>>>>>>> that sounds > >>>>>>>>> familiar, but I > >>>>>>>>> wasn't thinking of these > >>>>>>>>> names, > >>>>>>>>> nor was my point > >>>>>>>>> intended to > >>>>>>>>> bring in anyone whom I > >>>>>>>>> know or > >>>>>>>>> associated with. > >>>>>>>>> Looks like > >>>>>>>>> you are reading between > >>>>>>>>> the lines > >>>>>>>>> of what I write. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> HAVING THE > >>>>>>>>> HEAD OF > >>>>>>>>> SEWA OR K-NET > >>>>>>>>> WOULD SEEM TO > >>>>>>>>> ME TO BE RATHER > >>>>>>>>> MORE USEFUL, > >>>>>>>>> "RENOWNED" OR > >>>>>>>>> NOT, AS THEY AT > >>>>>>>>> LEAST COULD TALK > >>>>>>>>> WITH SOME DIRECT > >>>>>>>>> KNOWLEDGE > >>>>>>>>> ABOUT HOW IG > >>>>>>>>> ISSUES IMPACT > >>>>>>>>> THEM AND > >>>>>>>>> THE KINDS OF > >>>>>>>>> THINGS THEY > >>>>>>>>> ARE TRYING TO DO ON > >>>>>>>>> THE GROUND. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Again an Indian reference > >>>>>>>>> - you > >>>>>>>>> have used the word > >>>>>>>>> "Sewa" in > >>>>>>>>> your comment. Perhaps you > >>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>> reading me as someone > >>>>>>>>> pushing > >>>>>>>>> the Indian point of view? > >>>>>>>>> I am > >>>>>>>>> not. I am born in > >>>>>>>>> India, a > >>>>>>>>> participant from India, I > >>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>> faith in and respect > >>>>>>>>> for my > >>>>>>>>> country but I believe > >>>>>>>>> that in an > >>>>>>>>> International > >>>>>>>>> context I am at > >>>>>>>>> least a little wider than a > >>>>>>>>> national. I have been > >>>>>>>>> inspired by > >>>>>>>>> teachers who taught me in my > >>>>>>>>> school days that > >>>>>>>>> "patriotism is a > >>>>>>>>> prejudice" which is profound > >>>>>>>>> thinking which in > >>>>>>>>> depths implies > >>>>>>>>> that one must be beyond > >>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>> patriotic and be > >>>>>>>>> rather global. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (Will come back this > >>>>>>>>> point and > >>>>>>>>> write more in > >>>>>>>>> response to what > >>>>>>>>> you have written a little > >>>>>>>>> later) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you. > >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> MBG > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> M > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 15 03:42:06 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:12:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <788E9C37-3A3E-4FF6-8A04-5273C83DF9B7@ciroap.org> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <4ca4162f0907141832k10e82c14g154e564e92aff5e1@mail.gmail.com> <788E9C37-3A3E-4FF6-8A04-5273C83DF9B7@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4A5D884E.1080102@itforchange.net> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 15/07/2009, at 9:32 AM, Roxana Goldstein wrote: > >> I would like to suggest to add at point 7: >> - the need of translation of the material, documents, etc., to as >> many languages as possible >> - the need to continue working in the improvement of the >> participatory methodology, having as objective to assure equal >> opportunities for the participation, incidence and appropriation of >> the IGF for all -specially those of developing and under-developed >> countries and minoritarian groups-. >> >> And of course, I would like to add me and the organization I work at >> to the list of those who agree with and support this document -if >> possible-. > > Whilst these are important points, I think broadening participation > has been covered well already. > > As to the retention of "unconditional" in Shiva's text I don't think > it has passed the test of consensus. I do however greatly agree with the spirit of why Shiva wants this word in. Agenda driven funds, specially for policy related bodies, can be worse than no funds at all. Can we agree to the term 'funds with no conditionalities' or 'funds with no strings' attached. It is common usage in international development aid discourse and also in case of institutional funding support for policy related bodies. I cannot understand why should we have problems with these nearly universally accepted terms, and the normative implications that they carry. parminder > > Apart from that I do agree with Parminder that we should not at this > stage water the statement down by including new qualifying words like > "may need", "significant", etc, or by going soft on non-binding > outputs. Our opponents don't mince their words ("We don't think the > IGF should continue"), so why should we? > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 15 04:25:54 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:55:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5D8132.9000900@wzb.eu> References: <4A5D4C6B.3090809@itforchange.net> <4A5D8132.9000900@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A5D9292.4040506@itforchange.net> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Parminder wrote: >> >> >>>> >>>> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in >>>> the area >>>> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >>>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >>>> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >>>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their >>>> purview' (72 >>>> c). >>>> >>> >>> I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any >>> clear >>> success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something >>> similaR >>> >> It is a matter of fact. > > Facts is one issue to take into account, the context of evaluation is > another. No doubt, there will be no lack of harsh reviews. I think there will be less of harsh review than soft meaningless banalities trying to fix IGF in its present mode of little real outcomes. > While I fully agree that we have to mention the areas where the IGF > hasn't done enough and needs to do more. Thats what we do. I am as strong a supporter of the IGF as anyone else, but I look to it in terms of its potential. If we are not clear about our points I am afraid we are not helping it to move along towards its best potential, which in fact is also what its mandate expresses. > Yet, we are all aware that this is not a matter of laziness or lack of > care but often due to a lack of consensus among the MAG. We need to tell the MAG that it cannot be overriding the Summit's mandate for the IGF. This is what the present draft intends to clearly put forward. > I support Ian's 2 softening suggestions. I stand by my opposition to any dilutions. ""May need to extend its efforts in" more-or-less looks like our asking them to do more of the same as they are doing. I would though leave it to the moderators to decide from here on. parminder > > jeanette > > > Not only IGF has not done above, it doesnt have >> any structure adequate to this purpose. This is also mostly >> recognized even within the IGF as something to ponder about, and >> hints about this, and the issues below on clear outcomes were thrown >> at the concluding session of Hyderabad IGF. In fact much more than >> hints, the chair seems to have clearly said something to the effect >> that if wont be enough if we just keep to discussing things and that >> we may need to move forward. And most participants seemed to be >> veering around to this viewpoint. (My comments here cover 72b and c >> and also 72 e and g below). >> >> Admittedly, how to do it is still not very clear, but if we start >> diluting the imperative we certainly wont make any progress. One >> thing I cant understand is that why we as civil society - generally a >> voice of the 'outsiders' and the 'less heard' - need to be so >> diplomatic. Civil society is expected to present clear, rational, >> and, if needed hard-hitting, critiques. I think we are trying to be >> unnecessarily coy here, and in any such attempt will miss the point >> entirely. >> >>>> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its >>>> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing >>>> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the >>>> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying >>>> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. >>>> >>> >>> I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress >>> >> >> Same here. We are not writing a resolution for the UN Secy General to >> sign. We are writing a civil society statement of review of a key >> global governance institution. It needs to be clear and bold. We said >> good things about IGF boldly, and not so good things need to stated >> as boldly. We need to say clearly what we think and feel. If we are >> saying 'no significant progress has been made', we need to be able to >> show what 'less than significant' progress on these specific counts >> are we speaking about. Fact is that there is no structural form >> within the IGF right now to do this set of functions, and the IGF is >> still struggling with this. If civil society doesnt clearly bring >> this fact out who will. >> >> >>>> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >>>> >>>> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >>>> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ >>>> point of >>>> view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step >>>> because it >>>> is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >>>> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >>>> >>>> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >>>> participants, especially from developing countries with >>>> under-developed >>>> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >>>> >>>> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >>>> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >>>> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional >>>> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal >>>> way). >>>> >>>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >>>> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in >>>> order to >>>> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >>>> development of the Internet. >>>> >>>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >>>> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >>>> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >>>> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication >>>> that >>>> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so >>>> that >>>> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all >>>> actors, >>>> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which >>>> have not >>>> been adequately addressed. >>>> >>>> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >>>> processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As >>>> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >>>> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to >>>> establish >>>> formal relationships with these initiatives, including >>>> through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of >>>> governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >>>> should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >>>> appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. >>>> IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>>> >>>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be >>>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >>>> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an >>>> equitable >>>> distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a >>>> stable >>>> and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account >>>> multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles throughout the >>>> WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, ³promote >>>> and >>>> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in >>>> Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any >>>> follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >>>> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government¹s >>>> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be >>>> added as >>>> a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >>>> >>>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >>>> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >>>> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative >>>> "Towards a >>>> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >>>> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >>>> building block for such an effort. >>>> >>>> **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of >>>> rights. Yet >>>> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >>>> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >>>> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] >>>> >>> >>> I would include this but happy to go either way >>> >>>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >>>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to >>>> emphasize >>>> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >>>> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to >>>> access >>>> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >>>> current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of >>>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>>> >>>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >>>> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each >>>> other. >>>> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should >>>> govern the >>>> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >>>> Has >>>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? >>>> Has it >>>> acted as a catalyst for change? >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the >>>> level of >>>> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >>>> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there >>>> was >>>> during >>>> WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF >>>> Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels >>>> that >>>> include business, government, academia and civil society working >>>> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >>>> >>> >>> >>>> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >>>> question is >>>> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on >>>> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or >>>> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF >>>> which in >>>> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder >>>> groups. >>>> >>>> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >>>> involvement in >>>> IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your >>>> involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has >>>> assisted >>>> in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder >>>> process changed or affected your perspective on any particular >>>> governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill¹s edit] improving mutual >>>> understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the >>>> preparatory phase >>>> as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >>>> opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory >>>> process of >>>> the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of >>>> consultation. >>>> This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF >>>> process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory >>>> governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread >>>> impact. >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >>>> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >>>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>>> >>>> >>>> *Membership of the MAG* >>>> >>>> **[Bill suggests we delete]€ The MAG should be large enough so that >>>> its >>>> members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity >>>> and experience, but not so >>>> large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present >>>> circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One >>>> third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** >>>> >>>> >>> I agree lets delete >>> >>> >>>> €** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >>>> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >>>> remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is >>>> necessary >>>> to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >>>> € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>>> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >>>> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >>>> representation should not be at the expense of civil society >>>> participation. >>>> € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >>>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >>>> with special >>>> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >>>> >>>> *Role and Structure of the MAG* >>>> >>>> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right >>>> time >>>> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it >>>> will >>>> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >>>> >>>> € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for >>>> the >>>> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying >>>> out >>>> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve >>>> the >>>> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must >>>> review its >>>> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are >>>> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >>>> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG >>>> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively >>>> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the >>>> WSIS >>>> mandate. >>>> >>>> € It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through >>>> working >>>> groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and >>>> the set >>>> of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >>>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >>>> >>>> **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]€ We also seek greater clarity at >>>> this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other >>>> than >>>> advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out some >>>> part >>>> of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying >>>> issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, >>>> needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical >>>> that >>>> these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** >>>> >>> >>> >>>> € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >>>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >>>> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >>>> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >>>> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of >>>> paragraph >>>> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the >>>> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >>>> >>>> € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, >>>> which >>>> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up >>>> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >>>> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* >>>> >>>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >>>> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >>>> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >>>> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF >>>> Secretariat. >>>> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of >>>> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided >>>> with >>>> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >>>> >>>> **In addition, a fund should be established to support the >>>> participation >>>> of those from civil society in developing and least developed >>>> countries >>>> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct >>>> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory >>>> consultations.** >>>> >>>> >>>> *Special Advisors and Chair* >>>> >>>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >>>> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >>>> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in >>>> mind for >>>> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors >>>> should >>>> be kept within a reasonable limit. >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>>> mandate, and why/why not? >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >>>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>>> >>>> **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a >>>> forum for >>>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >>>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened >>>> and to >>>> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to >>>> improve effectiveness. >>>> >>>> [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. >>>> >>>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >>>> are >>>> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >>>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >>>> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be >>>> sought. >>>> >>>> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >>>> Internet >>>> policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making >>>> processes more >>>> participative and democratic. >>>> >>>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, >>>> However for >>>> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding >>>> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions >>>> effectively, and impartially in the global public interest. To >>>> this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement >>>> of no >>>> other UN organization in the IGF's management. >>>> >>>> >>>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>>> processes? >>>> >>>> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >>>> we submit: >>>> >>>> **[Delete, as per Bill¹s suggestion]Since the value and >>>> effectiveness of >>>> the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near-unanimous agreement >>>> that it should continue,** The IGC believes that the review should >>>> focus >>>> on addressing issues where [suggest delete Ginger] **in our opinion** >>>> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive >>>> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current >>>> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of >>>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited >>>> to, >>>> remote participation including transcription and archiving. >>>> >>>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the >>>> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >>>> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of >>>> society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and >>>> refugees, >>>> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. >>>> We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons >>>> with disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous >>>> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who >>>> are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those >>>> concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance >>>> structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to >>>> alternative >>>> modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific >>>> localized >>>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and >>>> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in >>>> support >>>> of broad based economic and social development. >>>> >>>> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >>>> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s >>>> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >>>> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >>>> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it >>>> may be >>>> appropriate for the >>>> Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face >>>> meeting. >>>> Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance >>>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >>>> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and >>>> for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the >>>> work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >>>> >>>> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >>>> more clearly >>>> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >>>> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >>>> options, and >>>> city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into >>>> consideration >>>> as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should >>>> be announced 360 >>>> days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to >>>> ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is >>>> competitive and convenient. >>>> >>>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >>>> support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >>>> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these >>>> should be >>>> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the >>>> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >>>> >>>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce >>>> more >>>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >>>> contends that the IGF as a >>>> whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the >>>> international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of >>>> non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. >>>> >>> >>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >>>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >>>> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >>>> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >>>> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >>>> >>>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >>>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >>>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >>>> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ >>>> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From natasha at apc.org Wed Jul 15 04:41:54 2009 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:41:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5D884E.1080102@itforchange.net> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <4ca4162f0907141832k10e82c14g154e564e92aff5e1@mail.gmail.com> <788E9C37-3A3E-4FF6-8A04-5273C83DF9B7@ciroap.org> <4A5D884E.1080102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9825C360-A47B-4937-A89C-DAC4A33053EC@apc.org> Hello All, I'm just catching up with all the emails and specific debates ... Just on the issue of the use of "unconditional": On 15 Jul 2009, at 9:42 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 15/07/2009, at 9:32 AM, Roxana Goldstein wrote: >> >>> I would like to suggest to add at point 7: >>> - the need of translation of the material, documents, etc., to as >>> many languages as possible >>> - the need to continue working in the improvement of the >>> participatory methodology, having as objective to assure equal >>> opportunities for the participation, incidence and appropriation >>> of the IGF for all -specially those of developing and under- >>> developed countries and minoritarian groups-. >>> >>> And of course, I would like to add me and the organization I work >>> at to the list of those who agree with and support this document - >>> if possible-. >> >> Whilst these are important points, I think broadening participation >> has been covered well already. >> >> As to the retention of "unconditional" in Shiva's text I don't >> think it has passed the test of consensus. > I do however greatly agree with the spirit of why Shiva wants this > word in. Agenda driven funds, specially for policy related bodies, > can be worse than no funds at all. Can we agree to the term 'funds > with no conditionalities' or 'funds with no strings' attached. It is > common usage in international development aid discourse and also in > case of institutional funding support for policy related bodies. I > cannot understand why should we have problems with these nearly > universally accepted terms, and the normative implications that they > carry. > > parminder Since the IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum it would make sense that funds that would broaden and diversify participation - from (L)DCs, under-represented geographic communities, CS, social groupings etc - do not privilege specific advocacy positions but are available to participants irrespective of what advocacy position they hold. By this I understand that a private sector representative from a (L)DC etc can have access to the funds as much as CS representative from the under- resourced CSO in the North. So, I also agree with the sentiment, but would support the idea for a formulation alternative to "unconditional" as its too closely associated - negatively with notions of not being "unaccountable". I'm not sure that Parminder's suggestions work either ... but i would agree to retaining the idea behind the disputed text. > >> >> Apart from that I do agree with Parminder that we should not at >> this stage water the statement down by including new qualifying >> words like "may need", "significant", etc, or by going soft on non- >> binding outputs. Our opponents don't mince their words ("We don't >> think the IGF should continue"), so why should we? >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo ____________________________________________________________ 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 From natasha at apc.org Wed Jul 15 04:59:02 2009 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:59:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <788E9C37-3A3E-4FF6-8A04-5273C83DF9B7@ciroap.org> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <4ca4162f0907141832k10e82c14g154e564e92aff5e1@mail.gmail.com> <788E9C37-3A3E-4FF6-8A04-5273C83DF9B7@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <0EE52D08-C5E3-4441-B963-C8A5BFAA5FD2@apc.org> On 15 Jul 2009, at 7:01 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > Apart from that I do agree with Parminder that we should not at this > stage water the statement down by including new qualifying words > like "may need", "significant", etc, or by going soft on non-binding > outputs. Our opponents don't mince their words ("We don't think the > IGF should continue"), so why should we? I agree we should be bold. > > -- > JEREMY MALCOLM > Project Coordinator > CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE > for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM > 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg > TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Mob: +60 12 282 5895 > Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 > www.consumersinternational.org > > Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global > campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more > information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 15 05:05:03 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:35:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <9825C360-A47B-4937-A89C-DAC4A33053EC@apc.org> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <4ca4162f0907141832k10e82c14g154e564e92aff5e1@mail.gmail.com> <788E9C37-3A3E-4FF6-8A04-5273C83DF9B7@ciroap.org> <4A5D884E.1080102@itforchange.net> <9825C360-A47B-4937-A89C-DAC4A33053EC@apc.org> Message-ID: <4A5D9BBF.4070104@itforchange.net> Natasha Primo wrote: > Hi >>> >>> As to the retention of "unconditional" in Shiva's text I don't think >>> it has passed the test of consensus. >> I do however greatly agree with the spirit of why Shiva wants this >> word in. Agenda driven funds, specially for policy related bodies, >> can be worse than no funds at all. Can we agree to the term 'funds >> with no conditionalities' or 'funds with no strings' attached. It is >> common usage in international development aid discourse and also in >> case of institutional funding support for policy related bodies. I >> cannot understand why should we have problems with these nearly >> universally accepted terms, and the normative implications that they >> carry. >> >> parminder > > Since the IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum it would make sense that > funds that would broaden and diversify participation - from (L)DCs, > under-represented geographic communities, CS, social groupings etc - > do not privilege specific advocacy positions but are available to > participants irrespective of what advocacy position they hold. By this > I understand that a private sector representative from a (L)DC etc can > have access to the funds as much as CS representative from the > under-resourced CSO in the North. So, I also agree with the sentiment, > but would support the idea for a formulation alternative to > "unconditional" as its too closely associated - negatively with > notions of not being "unaccountable". > > I'm not sure that Parminder's suggestions work either ... but i would > agree to retaining the idea behind the What about 'funds with no explicit or hidden undue conditionalities'. Quite a mouthful but I think captures the range of concerns expressed here. 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 From natasha at apc.org Wed Jul 15 05:15:18 2009 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:15:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello All, On 14 Jul 2009, at 5:55 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Dear Michael, Bill, Jeanette and all, > > I have used MG's "clear" file as a base document, and added Bill's > and Jeanette's and other missing suggestions with ** Some of these > edits were already made by MG, so they do not appear now. Please > excuse the overlap as I try to reconcile several versions and sets > of suggestions that have come in recently. > > Most of MG's edits were simple editing, but in particular, we need > to consider the changes (MG) to Q3 and Q6. I agree with Michael's > edits, and would ask that Shiva again consider submitting his > complete statement as a personal statement to the IGF. Shiva, this > allows you to keep your wording, including "unconditional". The tone > of our statement as below is now more even, and reflects the > opinions expressed as well as I was able to do so. > > I have tried to edit the paragraph that MG suggests needs > clarification, but I suggest deleting it, as the question of the MAG > as a "program committee" is addressed elsewhere, and this para is > indeed incoherent, as MG says. Bill also questions this para, so I > suggest we indeed remove it: > > "We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG > has any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary > General. For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which > requires 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving > recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be > able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these > tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General." > > Bill, and Jeanette, in reference to Bill's point: > "I remain of the view that this bit on rights would be better > positioned as a stand alone issue in section 7. On the one hand, > that the principles are intrinsically all about rights is a > contention of some, not a globally shared interpretation of all. One > of course could make the argument that there's a right to > information that equates to transparency, a right to participation, > a right to names in one's language, etc...but this hasn't been > debated and agreed in IGF or elsewhere. Insisting that all the WSIS > principles must be seen as a matter of rights could scare off some > parties before the fact and make it hard to persuade them to engage > seriously on the issues. And on the other hand, by conflating the > two the rights agenda seemingly becomes all about the WSIS > principles rather than a broader approach to the range of IG issues. > I wouldn't have thought that's what rights advocates want. " > > I suggest that we change the first part of the referred text from: > > "A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. > Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF." > > To: > > A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. > Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. > > And leave it where it is because of its link to the WSIS principles. > > Please take a careful look for final comments. We should begin a > call for Consensus today! > > Thanks everyone! Ginger > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, > and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue > on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on- > going process of evolutionary > Innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up > the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the > IGF > take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy > dialogue on > them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real > policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by > how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. > If > this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that > IGF > is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It > needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable > 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require > most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the > area > of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' > (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental > organisations and other institutions on matters under their > purview' (72 > c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its > mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing > ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the > Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying > emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point > of > view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step > because it > is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under- > developed > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for > multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional > initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal > way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in > order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication > that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so > that > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all > actors, > particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which > have not > been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As > already noted, some national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek > to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. **[remove as per Jeanette]Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, > IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multi-stakeholderisation of emerging national IGF > spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.** > > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an > equitable > distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a > stable > and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account > multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the > WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote > and > assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. > The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s > statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added > as > a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative > "Towards a > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of > rights. Yet > the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.] I agree with the reformulation. Lets keep it here. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to > emphasize > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to > access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that > should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? > Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the > level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there > was during > WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF > Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels > that > include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > question is > posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF > which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in > IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your > involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted > in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder > process changed or affected your perspective on any particular > governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also **[Bill’s edit] improving > mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions**. During the > preparatory phase > as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an > opportunity to experience the multi-stakholder participatory process > of > the IGF and **many** are becoming comfortable with this process of > consultation. > This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF > process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory > governance process and this will have other and potentially > widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > *Membership of the MAG* > > **[Bill suggests we delete]• The MAG should be large enough so that > its members bring the required balance of stakeholder interests, > diversity and experience, but not so > large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present > circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. > One third of MAG members should be rotated every year.** as its current practice, i agree we delete. > > •** Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi- > stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be > remedied[edit - Parminder]**. Fair civil society representation is > necessary > to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in > Internet administration and the development of Internet-related > technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. > However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil > society participation. > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, > groups with special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > *Role and Structure of the MAG* > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right > time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start > with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is > expected to perform. > > • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for > the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with > carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion > that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more > effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into > something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all > aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program > committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet > governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. > > • It **[Bill]would** be very useful for the MAG to work through > working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session > and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can > also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. yes > > **[Ginger suggests delete Bill too]• We also seek greater clarity at > this point about whether the MAG has any substantive identity other > than advising the UN Secretary General. For instance, to carry out > some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', 'advising', > identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form > or the other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly > impractical that these tasks can cohere in the UN Secretary General.** > > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report > should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against > relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and > also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, > once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the > requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide > necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of > continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, > which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such > a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > *Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation* > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of > a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We > express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF > Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been > responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The > Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to > perform its role effectively. > > **In addition, a fund should be established to support the > participation of those from civil society in developing and least > developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to > the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings > and the IGF preparatory consultations.** > > > *Special Advisors and Chair* > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in > mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > should > be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > **[Edit Bill]Two key elements of the mandate are** first, as a forum > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding > capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be > strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of > emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. > > [MG: The deleted section has been summarized in the above. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet > policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > processes more > participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work, However > for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable > funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its > functions effectively, and impartially in the global public > interest. To > this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of > no other UN organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In > addition, we submit: > > **[Delete, as per Bill’s suggestion]Since the value and > effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with what appears to be near- > unanimous agreement that it should continue,** The IGC believes that > the review should focus on addressing issues where [suggest delete > Ginger] **in our opinion** the IGF might be improved, and > particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this > instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to > identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and > developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote > participation including transcription and archiving. agree on the suggested deletions > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the > Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the > special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of > society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and > refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. > We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons > with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous > peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who > are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those > concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance > structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to > alternative > modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific > localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and > activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in > support > of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s > inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it > may be appropriate for the > Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to- > face meeting. > Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and > for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the > work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings > should more clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > options, and > city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into > consideration > as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites > should be announced 360 > days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to > ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is > competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these > should be complemented by more formal support and structured > inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce > more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC > contends that the IGF as a > whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the > international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of > non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG > activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for > example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ > stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Jul 15 05:36:56 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:36:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Various... On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. > Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. I don't mean to belabor the point but I just don't understand the claim we'd be making. DoP 48 and TA 29 say 29. We reaffirm the principles enunciated in the Geneva phase of the WSIS, in December 2003, that the Internet has evolved into a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda. The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international Organisations. It should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism. Where are the repeated mentions of rights that the governments who agreed these words would recognize? If people really want to wed the rights agenda just to the IG principles, fine, but there is a difference between advocating something and insisting that it is already there when other parties that negotiated the words will not recognize this as their intent. How does this help the caucus' credibility? Moreover, the next sentence needs cleaning up too, it was lifting from a statement complaining about rights not being central to a particular meeting's agenda. And it's not obvious what "the IGF has side-tracked efforts" could mean (the MAG has sidetracked?), that a majority (of what?) has favored a rights perspective, or that promoting a rights perspective is a central obligation of the IGF (unless we're going to read what we want into the mandate paragraphs as well). I'd suggest something like, "The WSIS principles on Internet governance can be viewed from a rights-based perspective. Unfortunately, proposals to make such a perspective central to the IGF's deliberations have been rejected." On this On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in >>>> the area >>>> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >>>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >>>> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >>>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their >>>> purview' (72 >>>> c). >>>> >>> >>> I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any >>> clear >>> success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or >>> something >>> similaR >>> >> It is a matter of fact. > > Facts is one issue to take into account, the context of evaluation > is another. No doubt, there will be no lack of harsh reviews. While > I fully agree that we have to mention the areas where the IGF hasn't > done enough and needs to do more. Yet, we are all aware that this is > not a matter of laziness or lack of care but often due to a lack of > consensus among the MAG. I support Ian's 2 softening suggestions. I personally don't see "still to achieve" as being all that negative. However, I remain uncomfortable throughout with language that makes the IGF sound like a centrally managed organization that has intentionality and chooses to ignore this or that. I'd rather we said something like, "Due to a regrettable lack of consensus among participants, the IGF has not achieved...." Finally, on recommendations, On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Important point, thank you for bringing this up, Ian. > As a compromise, could we perhaps qualify the statement by saying > that "some of the caucus members are of the belief that in the long > term..."? I don't think advocates of recs mean long-term. How about we replace >> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the >> long term it does not prove its value to the international community >> by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements >> on Internet public policy issues. With "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's unique character." Or something like that...trying to reflect that we're divided but it'd be good to get this issue out into the sunlight and clarify the reasoning of the respective parties, rather than having it buried in back channels. Let the proponents of each view make their case in an open manner, respond to counter-views, etc. Consensus would be highly unlikely (especially since IGF has no decision making procedures, or members for that matter) but the process might be constructive if handled right, and might help undermine the China/ITU argument that since IGF doesn't do recs it's useless. Bill ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 15 06:44:15 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:14:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A5DB2FF.8050703@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Various... > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. >> Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. > > I don't mean to belabor the point but I just don't understand the > claim we'd be making. DoP 48 and TA 29 say > > 29. We reaffirm the principles enunciated in the Geneva phase of the > WSIS, in December 2003, that the Internet has evolved into a global > facility available to the public and its governance should constitute > a core issue of the Information Society agenda. The international > management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and > democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international Organisations. It should > ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for > all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking > into account multilingualism. > > Where are the repeated mentions of rights that the governments who > agreed these words would recognize? TA 29 reaffirms some of the principles enunciated in the DoP, which it then goes on to detail. Where does it say that it exhausts what could be called as "WSIS principles'. It is as well to read the term WSIS principles as the whole DoP as relevant to the issue at hand. Section 31says 'We recognize that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society'. Is Geneva principles the same as WSIS principles or are they different. Para 72 1 speaks of 'embodiment of WSIS principles in IG processes', and then para 81, still under IG section speaks of 'commitment to the full implementation of the Geneva Principles'. Are they the same or different - and what are they. If you take it that the part on IG in DoP is what is WSIS principles, which would be para 48 onwards, would not the para 49 of your dreaded (and I agree with you on this) 'respective roles' part also be WSIS principles? I can understand that your arguments may have some logic as discussions went during WSIS, but it is really not clear which set may definitively be called as WSIS principles, and therefore it is not far-fetched at all to consider DoP (as applying to IG) as WSIS principles, and it is from there we pick up the rights angle which is our present effort to push. We have been able to get some traction in the MAG to get rights issue into IGF discussions under this label, and we simply do not want to backtrack ourselves, when there are enough on the other side who are ready to use all such logic. So, Id suggest let the rights section stay where it is, and not only that, we also keep using ( and intensify our efforts) for positioning rights as a part of WSIS principles which we would like to see embodied in all IG processes - which is one of the major agenda related gains that civil society have achieved for IGF Sharm. If we accept that rights are not a part of WSIS principles we will be forfeiting our right to discuss rights under the main session on WSIS principles at the next IGF. Let us be aware of that fact. parminder > > If people really want to wed the rights agenda just to the IG > principles, fine, but there is a difference between advocating > something and insisting that it is already there when other parties > that negotiated the words will not recognize this as their intent. How > does this help the caucus' credibility? Moreover, the next sentence > needs cleaning up too, it was lifting from a statement complaining > about rights not being central to a particular meeting's agenda. And > it's not obvious what "the IGF has side-tracked efforts" could mean > (the MAG has sidetracked?), that a majority (of what?) has favored a > rights perspective, or that promoting a rights perspective is a > central obligation of the IGF (unless we're going to read what we want > into the mandate paragraphs as well). > > I'd suggest something like, > > "The WSIS principles on Internet governance can be viewed from a > rights-based perspective. Unfortunately, proposals to make such a > perspective central to the IGF's deliberations have been rejected." > > On this > > On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>>>> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in >>>>> the area >>>>> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different >>>>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' >>>>> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental >>>>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their >>>>> purview' (72 >>>>> c). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any >>>> clear >>>> success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something >>>> similaR >>>> >>> It is a matter of fact. >> >> Facts is one issue to take into account, the context of evaluation is >> another. No doubt, there will be no lack of harsh reviews. While I >> fully agree that we have to mention the areas where the IGF hasn't >> done enough and needs to do more. Yet, we are all aware that this is >> not a matter of laziness or lack of care but often due to a lack of >> consensus among the MAG. > I support Ian's 2 softening suggestions. > > I personally don't see "still to achieve" as being all that negative. > However, I remain uncomfortable throughout with language that makes > the IGF sound like a centrally managed organization that has > intentionality and chooses to ignore this or that. I'd rather we said > something like, > > "Due to a regrettable lack of consensus among participants, the IGF > has not achieved...." > > Finally, on recommendations, > > On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Important point, thank you for bringing this up, Ian. >> As a compromise, could we perhaps qualify the statement by saying >> that "some of the caucus members are of the belief that in the long >> term..."? > > I don't think advocates of recs mean long-term. How about we replace > >>> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the >>> long term it does not prove its value to the international community >>> by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements >>> on Internet public policy issues. > > With > > "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where > appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the > requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC > members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly > favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of > recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have > colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes > it is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing > multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever > could be appropriate and on the possible implications of such > negotiations for the IGF's unique character." > > Or something like that...trying to reflect that we're divided but it'd > be good to get this issue out into the sunlight and clarify the > reasoning of the respective parties, rather than having it buried in > back channels. Let the proponents of each view make their case in an > open manner, respond to counter-views, etc. Consensus would be highly > unlikely (especially since IGF has no decision making procedures, or > members for that matter) but the process might be constructive if > handled right, and might help undermine the China/ITU argument that > since IGF doesn't do recs it's useless. > > Bill > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 15 07:05:51 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:35:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> > > I don't think advocates of recs mean long-term. How about we replace > >>> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the >>> long term it does not prove its value to the international community >>> by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements >>> on Internet public policy issues. > > With > > "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where > appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the > requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC > members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly > favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of > recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have > colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes > it is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing > multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever > could be appropriate and on the possible implications of such > negotiations for the IGF's unique character." Bill If in the same manner that all stakeholders in Norway could agree on a normative framework on Network Neutrality, if it were possible to be also done on the global level in an IGF setting (round-tables and further structural evolutions) what problem do you have with it? Or a normative framework on accessibility rights in the digital space. Or even a normative framework on how governments could cooperate on making legitimate globally applicable public policy principles. How does it compromise IGF's unique character. If we dont give such structural and outcome evolutions even a chance, there simply cant happen. And if you oppose them simply because you know they cant happen then you can as well let us try our 'foolish ambitions' and you can always happily later say 'i told you so'. We keep on talking about IGF working through inter-sessional WGs, etc etc - what would all of it then amount to, if not some kind of concrete stuff on IG matters. The distinction between any such outcomes and soft recommendations is thin, and we need to explore which way can it best work out. But meanwhile we need to keep pushing IGF ahead away from institutional inertia that every institution falls into. That is the purpose of the text. I repeat, IGF is the only place where any rec kind of outcome will have a big participation from civil society. How can be then we ourselves be against such a possibility which is otherwise a explicit part of the mandate. > > Or something like that...trying to reflect that we're divided but it'd > be good to get this issue out into the sunlight and clarify the > reasoning of the respective parties, rather than having it buried in > back channels. Let the proponents of each view make their case in an > open manner, respond to counter-views, etc. Consensus would be highly > unlikely (especially since IGF has no decision making procedures, or > members for that matter) but the process might be constructive if > handled right, and might help undermine the China/ITU argument that > since IGF doesn't do recs it's useless. No, China's position has shifted. Now it is not that IGF is useless because it cannot recommend. China now does not want IGF to do recommendations or any such thing and is very wary of any such moves. Inter alia, it is because it thinks since IGF has a big CS component we can get rights kind of stuff into IG, and therefrore ITU is a much better bet. We may have missed this important shift. On the other hand, ITU too does'nt want IGF to make recommendations. parminder > > Bill > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Jul 15 07:14:36 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:14:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5DB2FF.8050703@itforchange.net> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB2FF.8050703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6E744CC5-0E30-45C9-9002-936BCB480C1A@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Parminder On Jul 15, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Parminder wrote: >> Where are the repeated mentions of rights that the governments who >> agreed these words would recognize? > TA 29 reaffirms some of the principles enunciated in the DoP, which > it then goes on to detail. I'd say it reaffirms THE principles on IG as listed in DoP 48-50 and consistently referred to by all as the principles. > Where does it say that it exhausts what could be called as "WSIS > principles'. It is as well to read the term WSIS principles as the > whole DoP as relevant to the issue at hand. Again, here we have to agree to disagree, but insofar as I've never heard anyone else contend that the whole DoP are the principles on IG, including here, I don't see how we can credibly submit a statement premised on this expansive claim. > > Section 31says 'We recognize that Internet governance, carried out > according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a > people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non- > discriminatory Information Society'. I guess you read that as a statement of rights? I don't. To me the principles are the "should" provisions, and these are not stated as rights (though, again, one could read them from that perspective and try to build a case etc). > > Is Geneva principles the same as WSIS principles or are they > different. different from principles on IG > Para 72 1 speaks of 'embodiment of WSIS principles in IG processes', > and then para 81, still under IG section speaks of 'commitment to > the full implementation of the Geneva Principles'. Are they the same > or different - and what are they. I believe the reference there is to the principles on IG. Loose writing. Happens in negotiations. > > If you take it that the part on IG in DoP is what is WSIS > principles, which would be para 48 onwards, would not the para 49 of > your dreaded (and I agree with you on this) 'respective roles' part > also be WSIS principles? As I noted the other day in the bit of article I quoted, 48-50 can be viewed as such, although 50 was really mandating WGIG. I am thankful that 49 has never been referred to as "the principles on IG" anyplace that I can recall, it's well worth forgetting. > > I can understand that your arguments may have some logic as > discussions went during WSIS, but it is really not clear which set > may definitively be called as WSIS principles, and therefore it is > not far-fetched at all to consider DoP (as applying to IG) as WSIS > principles, and it is from there we pick up the rights angle which > is our present effort to push. We have been able to get some > traction in the MAG to get rights issue into IGF discussions under > this label, and we simply do not want to backtrack ourselves, when > there are enough on the other side who are ready to use all such > logic. I understand your intentions but think advocacy in the MAG about the Sharm program and what are the IG principles are two separate things. > > So, Id suggest let the rights section stay where it is, and not only > that, we also keep using ( and intensify our efforts) for > positioning rights as a part of WSIS principles which we would like > to see embodied in all IG processes - which is one of the major > agenda related gains that civil society have achieved for IGF Sharm. > If we accept that rights are not a part of WSIS principles we will > be forfeiting our right to discuss rights under the main session on > WSIS principles at the next IGF. Let us be aware of that fact. Understood. But we're in total disagreement on this, alas. I would have thought it sufficient to stick to a formulation that all can agree on, >> "The WSIS principles on Internet governance can be viewed from a >> rights-based perspective. Whereas you want to assert "A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights," which I and I suspect some others just don't see. Since we can't resolve this bilaterally we need to hear from more people. I'll go with whatever majority sentiment is, if there is one, we're not negotiating a nuclear arms treaty, I've said my piece and will not hari kari if the caucus ends up saying something that makes no sense to me. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Jul 15 07:29:43 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:29:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi again, > > If in the same manner that all stakeholders in Norway could agree on > a normative framework on Network Neutrality, if it were possible to > be also done on the global level in an IGF setting (round-tables and > further structural evolutions) what problem do you have with it? Or > a normative framework on accessibility rights in the digital space. > Or even a normative framework on how governments could cooperate on > making legitimate globally applicable public policy principles. How > does it compromise IGF's unique character. I'm not saying normative frameworks are bad, I'm all about normative frameworks. I'm saying there are people here who believe the negotiation of such frameworks in the IGF would harm the IGF. I say that because they have, repeatedly, for years. It's not about me, I was trying to reflect that the caucus is divided on the point, and it seems like you're just restating your side of the debate rather than acknowledging that others here have disagreed with it. I don't understand how another round of that here and now helps us move toward a text we can adopt by consensus. We cannot by consensus adopt a statement based on one side of a polarized discussion that's gone on for four years. If you don't like my effort at a compromise text acknowledging that different people have different views, please draft another for collective consideration. >> > No, China's position has shifted. Now it is not that IGF is useless > because it cannot recommend. China now does not want IGF to do > recommendations or any such thing and is very wary of any such > moves. Inter alia, it is because it thinks since IGF has a big CS > component we can get rights kind of stuff into IG, and therefrore > ITU is a much better bet. We may have missed this important shift. > On the other hand, ITU too does'nt want IGF to make recommendations. Understood, I was just saying an open debate on recs would help negate some of the junk that's been thrown at IGF before on this score. Really must do GNSO and other stuff now, hope someone has the time to integrate a doc that has a chance of being adopted by consensus. Today is the 15th, we can probably be a day or so late but not much more. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 15 07:51:24 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:21:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5DC2BC.4060906@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi again, > >> >> If in the same manner that all stakeholders in Norway could agree on >> a normative framework on Network Neutrality, if it were possible to >> be also done on the global level in an IGF setting (round-tables and >> further structural evolutions) what problem do you have with it? Or a >> normative framework on accessibility rights in the digital space. Or >> even a normative framework on how governments could cooperate on >> making legitimate globally applicable public policy principles. How >> does it compromise IGF's unique character. > > I'm not saying normative frameworks are bad, I'm all about normative > frameworks. I'm saying there are people here who believe the > negotiation of such frameworks in the IGF would harm the IGF. It is often about the language used, which comes from the objectives we are putting such language in service of. You bought in the term 'negotiations' which raises some heckles (though I am not entirely clear, why). I call it simply as development of commonly-agreed normative frameworks in areas we can do that, and keep trying in others. Simple. You speak of possible harm, I speak of possible gains. How to decide which is more likely, and what is the nature of the trade off. I have listed the immense possibilities of possible gain. I am willing to listen to the possibilities of harm. We can then discuss the trade off. The parts of IGF dealing with open dialogue and those which try to evolve normative frameworks, the kinds i spoke about, can be kept structurally separate, whereby breakdown of one process doesnt effect the other part. Where is the possibility of harm then. That was exactly the direction that round-tables format, which has been aborted now, was seeking to take. > I say that because they have, repeatedly, for years. It's not about > me, I was trying to reflect that the caucus is divided on the point, > and it seems like you're just restating your side of the debate rather > than acknowledging that others here have disagreed with it. I am at least stating my side, you are not stating yours :) . You are saying it is because others have held so, but it is helpful if you tell your position, and of course certainly warn/ caution us about others positions. "Snooze and you loose' isnt fine. But beyond a point those who believe in one side of the argument or the other need to themselves come forward and make it. IGC needs to also move forward in its positions as the time moves forward. parminder > I don't understand how another round of that here and now helps us > move toward a text we can adopt by consensus. > > We cannot by consensus adopt a statement based on one side of a > polarized discussion that's gone on for four years. If you don't like > my effort at a compromise text acknowledging that different people > have different views, please draft another for collective consideration. >>> >> No, China's position has shifted. Now it is not that IGF is useless >> because it cannot recommend. China now does not want IGF to do >> recommendations or any such thing and is very wary of any such moves. >> Inter alia, it is because it thinks since IGF has a big CS component >> we can get rights kind of stuff into IG, and therefrore ITU is a much >> better bet. We may have missed this important shift. On the other >> hand, ITU too does'nt want IGF to make recommendations. > > Understood, I was just saying an open debate on recs would help negate > some of the junk that's been thrown at IGF before on this score. > > Really must do GNSO and other stuff now, hope someone has the time to > integrate a doc that has a chance of being adopted by consensus. Today > is the 15th, we can probably be a day or so late but not much more. > > Best, > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 09:03:54 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:33:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits In-Reply-To: <9825C360-A47B-4937-A89C-DAC4A33053EC@apc.org> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <4ca4162f0907141832k10e82c14g154e564e92aff5e1@mail.gmail.com> <788E9C37-3A3E-4FF6-8A04-5273C83DF9B7@ciroap.org> <4A5D884E.1080102@itforchange.net> <9825C360-A47B-4937-A89C-DAC4A33053EC@apc.org> Message-ID: Hello Natasha Primo, On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Natasha Primo wrote: > Hello All, > > I'm just catching up with all the emails and specific debates ... > > Just on the issue of the use of "unconditional": > > On 15 Jul 2009, at 9:42 AM, Parminder wrote: > > >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 15/07/2009, at 9:32 AM, Roxana Goldstein wrote: >>> >>> I would like to suggest to add at point 7: >>>> - the need of translation of the material, documents, etc., to as many >>>> languages as possible >>>> - the need to continue working in the improvement of the participatory >>>> methodology, having as objective to assure equal opportunities for the >>>> participation, incidence and appropriation of the IGF for all -specially >>>> those of developing and under-developed countries and minoritarian groups-. >>>> >>>> And of course, I would like to add me and the organization I work at to >>>> the list of those who agree with and support this document -if possible-. >>>> >>> >>> Whilst these are important points, I think broadening participation has >>> been covered well already. >>> >>> As to the retention of "unconditional" in Shiva's text I don't think it >>> has passed the test of consensus. >>> >> I do however greatly agree with the spirit of why Shiva wants this word >> in. Agenda driven funds, specially for policy related bodies, can be worse >> than no funds at all. Can we agree to the term 'funds with no >> conditionalities' or 'funds with no strings' attached. It is common usage in >> international development aid discourse and also in case of institutional >> funding support for policy related bodies. I cannot understand why should we >> have problems with these nearly universally accepted terms, and the >> normative implications that they carry. >> >> parminder >> > > Since the IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum it would make sense that funds > that would broaden and diversify participation - from (L)DCs, > under-represented geographic communities, CS, social groupings etc - do not > privilege specific advocacy positions but are available to participants > irrespective of what advocacy position they hold. By this I understand that > a private sector representative from a (L)DC etc can have access to the > funds as much as CS representative from the under-resourced CSO in the > North. So, I also agree with the sentiment, but would support the idea for a > formulation alternative to "unconditional" as its too closely associated - > negatively with notions of not being "unaccountable". "Unconditional" is to imply a larger accountability to the issue or cause. Used in this context, especially in the context of how the statement was framed, the word "unconditional" is unambiguous. > > > I'm not sure that Parminder's suggestions work either ... but i would agree > to retaining the idea behind the disputed text. > > > > >> >>> Apart from that I do agree with Parminder that we should not at this >>> stage water the statement down by including new qualifying words like "may >>> need", "significant", etc, or by going soft on non-binding outputs. Our >>> opponents don't mince their words ("We don't think the IGF should >>> continue"), so why should we? >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ > Natasha Primo > National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative > Association for Progressive Communications > Johannesburg, South Africa > Tel/Fax: +27118372122 > Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jul 15 10:54:59 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:54:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> <4A5DC2BC.4060906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different. Wolfgang http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Wed Jul 15 12:10:41 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:10:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> <4A5DC2BC.4060906@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4206BF98-54D8-4C10-B768-3E33EED17EC5@acm.org> On 15 Jul 2009, at 10:54, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > he discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new > entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what > multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the > diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade > could look rather different. well you just have to keep trying to educate/remind them. what we, collectively, cannot do is allow this to have just been a historical anomaly. a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Wed Jul 15 17:39:22 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:39:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> <4A5DC2BC.4060906@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <61a136f40907151439k58cb65eai54cb7922a0f3c5c9@mail.gmail.com> Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that. Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage. The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even mention Haiti. Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future. History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! Carlton Samuels 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she > proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended > version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. > > If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the > contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, > that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, > what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the > diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look > rather different. > > Wolfgang > > http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Jul 15 18:24:38 2009 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:24:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> <4A5DC2BC.4060906@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4A5E5726.2030501@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang schrieb: > Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, > where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This meme has been around before: > If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the > contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started Right. IG is just hitting the mainstream fan in Germany and most of the EU, especially the issues of divergent national laws on the content side of this global communication infrastructure. We need to have soundbytes ready that the layman as well as the yellow press will understand. End of cosy schmoozing with UN officials, begin of real-world politics. Not sure I like it, but that's the challenge ahead. In the long-term perspective, I think it's a good thing that IG is developing into its own policy field after all. Ralf ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 18:31:49 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:01:49 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 Message-ID: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> Hello, all... We are not going to make the deadline of midnight GMT today, but I have asked the Secretariat for an extension, and Markus Kummer has said we may have a short extension. Current proposed text follows at the bottom with the controversial sections marked with **[ ] Please opine as soon as possible, trying to give concrete options or suggestions for solutions if you can. I think that Natasha's, Roxana's and Jean-Louis's concerns have already been dealt with in the text or below, please re-state if not... sorry if I missed something or misinterpreted. Please let me know. So... correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that there are four areas still under discussion. There may be other points that I did not catch. 1) Q1: **[In this connection, IGF IS STILL TO ACHIEVE ANY CLEAR SUCCESS in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). ]** Could we say: (I think this is somewhat stronger than Ian's: IGF "may need to extend its efforts in") **[In this connection, the IGF MUST EXTEND ITS EFFORTS in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). ]** AND can everyone accept this wording, or suggest another? **[IGF has also not been able to make any SIGNIFICANT progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. 2) Q2 the issue of rights, particularly: **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** Note that the at question 2, the questionnaire itself http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009) has a link to the WSIS declaration of principles http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 articles of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I agree with Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs? 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on Internet public policy issues.] or change to Bill's suggestion of: "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's unique character." 4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options-- (Q6 also) A) that we use this shortened version: The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. B) or this version, with "unconditional" changed to "that are free from censorship or restrictions on content": The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments, but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We mention in particular: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities need to be improved availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations THAT ARE FREE FROM CENSORSHIP OR RESTRICTIONS ON CONTENT. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need). Or C: 'funds with no explicit or hidden undue conditionalities' for that qualification. 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. **[In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). ]** **[IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. ] IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? ****Membership of the MAG** •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with special needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. ****Role and Structure of the MAG** With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. ****Special Advisors and Chair** The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. **[Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.] **[The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender.] 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jul 15 21:22:41 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:22:41 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 In-Reply-To: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> Message-ID: A few comments, thanks so much Ginger for taking the lead on this On 16/07/09 8:31 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Hello, all... > > We are not going to make the deadline of midnight GMT today, but I have > asked the Secretariat for an extension, and Markus Kummer has said we > may have a short extension. Current proposed text follows at the bottom > with the controversial sections marked with **[ ] > > Please opine as soon as possible, trying to give concrete options or > suggestions for solutions if you can. > > I think that Natasha's, Roxana's and Jean-Louis's concerns have already > been dealt with in the text or below, please re-state if not... sorry if > I missed something or misinterpreted. Please let me know. > > So... correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that there are four > areas still under discussion. There may be other points that I did not > catch. > > 1) > Q1: **[In this connection, IGF IS STILL TO ACHIEVE ANY CLEAR SUCCESS in > the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with > different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the > Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate > inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under > their purview' (72 c). ]** > > Could we say: (I think this is somewhat stronger than Ian's: IGF "may > need to extend its efforts in") I'm happy with that. > > **[In this connection, the IGF MUST EXTEND ITS EFFORTS in the area of > 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' > (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental > organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 > c). ]** > > AND can everyone accept this wording, or suggest another? Still happy > > **[IGF has also not been able to make any SIGNIFICANT progress towards > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders > in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g > of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making > recommendations'. Yes> > 2) > Q2 the issue of rights, particularly: > **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. > Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** > > Note that the at question 2, the questionnaire itself > http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Form > alConsult032009) > has a link to the WSIS declaration of principles > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html > > On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 articles > of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I agree with > Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs? Leave it in IMHO > > 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, > Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC > contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does > not prove its value to the international community by adopting > mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on Internet > public policy issues.] > > or change to Bill's suggestion of: > > "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where > appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the > requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC > members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly > favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of > recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have > colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it > is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder > dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate > and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's > unique character." > Yes I like Bill's text > 4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options-- > (Q6 also) > A) that we use this shortened version: > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG > activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for > example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. > > B) or this version, with "unconditional" changed to "that are free from > censorship or restrictions on content": > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation. > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly > qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments, but it is also true > that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more > Civil Society participants known for their commitment and > accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. > And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant > segments and geographic regions. We mention in particular: Indigenous > peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and > particularly those who are the poorest of > the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting > peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an > electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet > governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and > limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in > implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of > broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities need > to be improved availability of various categories of travel grants for > participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the > IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for > representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves > a limited objective. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the > IGF consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, > governments, well funded non-governmental and international > organizations and the United Nations THAT ARE FREE FROM CENSORSHIP OR > RESTRICTIONS ON CONTENT. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead > participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial > fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention > to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic > regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from > affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need). > > Or C: 'funds with no explicit or hidden undue conditionalities' for that > qualification. > > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going > process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF > meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is > important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and > seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue > helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's > success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real > policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of > success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, > but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural > evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on > 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > **[In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the > area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' > (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental > organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 > c). ]** > > **[IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling > its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in > proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g > of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making > recommendations'. ] > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking > with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of view, if > not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is > widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder > dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the > global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying > this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, > particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have > not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As > already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking > shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish > formal relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and > ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into > account multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles > throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF > to, ³promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has > not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of > its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated > programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss > government¹s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should > be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. > Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was > during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the > IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels > that include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF > on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any > particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the > IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and > perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as > during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to > experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and > many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance > process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > ****Membership of the MAG** > > €Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > experiment in global governance. > € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups > with special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > ****Role and Structure of the MAG** > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will > be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out > this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG > that is little more than a program committee will not effectively > advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS > mandate. > > € It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by > the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph > 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the > discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up > for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is > also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. > While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of > the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with > the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries > with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct > of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations. > > > ****Special Advisors and Chair** > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind > for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > should be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to > be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to > improve effectiveness. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > processes more participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding > from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end > we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN > organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, > we submit: > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of > rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, > remote participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the > Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special > needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including > migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We > shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with > disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and > often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer > and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and > those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the > Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and > social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s > inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be > appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a > single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other > Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which > global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere > rather than the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should > more clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into > consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and > sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and > lodging that is competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the > Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > **[Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC > contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does > not prove its value to the international community by adopting > mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet > public policy issues.] > > **[The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG > activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for > example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender.] > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare > consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 21:27:56 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:27:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 In-Reply-To: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> References: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0907151827j5a8ea11eq65412ea47f51cf20@mail.gmail.com> thanks, ok for me dear Ginger! Regards, Roxana 2009/7/15 Ginger Paque > Hello, all... > > We are not going to make the deadline of midnight GMT today, but I have > asked the Secretariat for an extension, and Markus Kummer has said we may > have a short extension. Current proposed text follows at the bottom with the > controversial sections marked with **[ ] > > Please opine as soon as possible, trying to give concrete options or > suggestions for solutions if you can. > > I think that Natasha's, Roxana's and Jean-Louis's concerns have already > been dealt with in the text or below, please re-state if not... sorry if I > missed something or misinterpreted. Please let me know. > > So... correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that there are four areas > still under discussion. There may be other points that I did not catch. > > 1) > Q1: **[In this connection, IGF IS STILL TO ACHIEVE ANY CLEAR SUCCESS in the > area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section > 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and > other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). ]** > > Could we say: (I think this is somewhat stronger than Ian's: IGF "may need > to extend its efforts in") > > **[In this connection, the IGF MUST EXTEND ITS EFFORTS in the area of > 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and > 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other > institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). ]** > > AND can everyone accept this wording, or suggest another? > > **[IGF has also not been able to make any SIGNIFICANT progress towards > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in > proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of > the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying > emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > 2) > Q2 the issue of rights, particularly: > **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet > the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant > emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride > what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** > > Note that the at question 2, the questionnaire itself > http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009) > has a link to the WSIS declaration of principles > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html > > On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 articles of > Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I agree with Parminder > that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs? > > 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, > Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC > contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not > prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for > the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on Internet public policy > issues.] > > or change to Bill's suggestion of: > > "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where > appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the > requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC members > also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly favoring and > others just as strongly opposing the adoption of recommendations. Since > significant disagreements on this matter have colored perceptions of and > participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it is necessary to have an open, > inclusive, and probing multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting > recommendations ever could be appropriate and on the possible implications > of such negotiations for the IGF's unique character." > > 4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options-- > (Q6 also) > A) that we use this shortened version: > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide > substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further > enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of > participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the > broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty > alleviation, the environment and gender. > > B) or this version, with "unconditional" changed to "that are free from > censorship or restrictions on content": > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide > substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further > enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of > participation. > > There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF > participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified > individuals with diverse accomplishments, but it is also true that IGF > participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society > participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF > arena on various Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the > IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We > mention in particular: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with > disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of > the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting peer-to-peer > and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those > looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to > specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as > practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary > resource in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding > possibilities need to be improved availability of various categories of > travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those not yet > seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds > available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding > achieves a limited objective. > > With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF > consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, > governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations > and the United Nations THAT ARE FREE FROM CENSORSHIP OR RESTRICTIONS ON > CONTENT. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel > speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater > number of participants with special attention to participants from > unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or > unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, > represented regions if there is an individual need). > > Or C: 'funds with no explicit or hidden undue conditionalities' for that > qualification. > > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set > out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained > in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and > specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way > to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. > However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process > of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep > up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF > take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on > them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real > policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how > much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is > taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving > towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to > continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and > purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes > of real policy making. > > **[In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the > area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section > 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and > other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). ]** > > **[IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its > mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways > and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet > in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, > ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. ] > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking > with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not > accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely > recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models > beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, > especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and > expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder > dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the > global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this > innovation in a relatively formal way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development > of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The > participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the > controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. > The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is > still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may > cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in > areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately > addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some > national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further > encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with > these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a > stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account > multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet > Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this > arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting > issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those > principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To > that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good > practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the > principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such > an effort. > > **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet > the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant > emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride > what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, > while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and > applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates > regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern > the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it > impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted > as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that > there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during > WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF > Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that > include business, government, academia and civil society working together > and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question > is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder > process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance > issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and > perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as > during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to > experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many > are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process > and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, > including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), > Secretariat and open consultations? > > > ****Membership of the MAG** > > •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society > representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in > global governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with > special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > ****Role and Structure of the MAG** > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to > revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be > useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this > function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially > important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to > enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more > than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet > governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. > > • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). > These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops > connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal > tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts > of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for > the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary > General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis > Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the > desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for > this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also > expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN > process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its > mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect > and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely > under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the > IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs > to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of > those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with > perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the > discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations. > > > ****Special Advisors and Chair** > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be > kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder > policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of > the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being > co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial > an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs > from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > processes more participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from > publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we > believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN > organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we > submit: > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely > heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote > participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information > Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of > marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, > internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We > shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with > disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural > people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often > landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open > access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking > to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to > specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as > practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary > resource in support of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception > but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology > support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental > conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet > Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. > Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement > between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global > face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than > the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources > and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and > city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as > well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be > announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, > and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is > competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a > regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote > Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > **[Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC > contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not > prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for > the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.] > > **[The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to > further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of > participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the > broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty > alleviation, the environment and gender.] > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce > a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and > collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also > assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports > on issues/sessions. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jul 15 23:36:49 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:36:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81695573-96EE-428B-896C-580035B48041@ciroap.org> On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, >> Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce >> more >> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >> contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does >> not prove its value to the international community by adopting >> mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on >> Internet >> public policy issues.] >> >> or change to Bill's suggestion of: >> >> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where >> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the >> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC >> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly >> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of >> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have >> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC >> believes it >> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder >> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be >> appropriate >> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's >> unique character." > > Yes I like Bill's text I don't like it at all I'm afraid (sorry Bill) - and I should also note that despite the highlighting of **NON-BINDING** above suggesting that this wording was a change, in fact it wasn't - it was in my original. I'm not going to raise a fuss about the other compromises, but I think I have to stand my ground on this one. First, it exaggerates the effect of the qualifier "where appropriate". Those words cannot be used to detract from the mandate. Raising even the possibility that it might *never* be appropriate to make recommendations, is effectively to abrogate paragraph 72(g) altogether. Nobody has the authority to do that - and still less should civil society be suggesting it! What could it possibly gain us to rule out the possibility that civil society could ever have real input into development of Internet public policy through a multi-stakeholder deliberative process? If anything we should advocate for the *narrowest* possible interpretation of "where appropriate"; for example, to say that the qualifier is basically redundant - as even if there were no controversy about making policy recommendations in principle, there will always be particular issues on which it would not be appropriate to do so (perhaps the emerging issue is still evolving quickly). My second objection is that the suggested replacement is far too limiting as it is not only pursuant to 72(g) on recommendations that the IGF could produce non-binding outputs. A document might also need to be produced by the IGF in order to facilitate discourse between or to interface with other bodies, or to propose ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world, or to assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, or to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet... or indeed in almost any of the paragraphs of its mandate. As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may suffer", which waters it down to a similar extent as has been proposed for the other paragraphs accepted by Ian. Beyond that though, this is looking less and less like a civil society statement and more like the kind of thing ISOC might put out. Frankly as Parminder has observed, if the IGC doesn't have the guts to push for increased civil society input into Internet policy development processes, I'm not sure who will. The end result is that consumer voices will continue to be disempowered and sidelined in favour of the incumbent government and big business interests. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 16 01:33:59 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:03:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 In-Reply-To: <81695573-96EE-428B-896C-580035B48041@ciroap.org> References: <81695573-96EE-428B-896C-580035B48041@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4A5EBBC7.5060704@itforchange.net> Comments below. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>> 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, >>> Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce >>> more >>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >>> contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does >>> not prove its value to the international community by adopting >>> mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on Internet >>> public policy issues.] >>> >>> or change to Bill's suggestion of: >>> >>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where >>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the >>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC >>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly >>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of >>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have >>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC >>> believes it >>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder >>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate >>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's >>> unique character." >> >> Yes I like Bill's text > > I don't like it at all I'm afraid (sorry Bill) - and I should also > note that despite the highlighting of **NON-BINDING** above suggesting > that this wording was a change, in fact it wasn't - it was in my > original. > > I'm not going to raise a fuss about the other compromises, but I think > I have to stand my ground on this one. First, it exaggerates the > effect of the qualifier "where appropriate". Those words cannot be > used to detract from the mandate. Raising even the possibility that it > might *never* be appropriate to make recommendations, is effectively > to abrogate paragraph 72(g) altogether. Nobody has the authority to do > that - and still less should civil society be suggesting it! What > could it possibly gain us to rule out the possibility that civil > society could ever have real input into development of Internet public > policy through a multi-stakeholder deliberative process? > > If anything we should advocate for the *narrowest* possible > interpretation of "where appropriate"; for example, to say that the > qualifier is basically redundant - as even if there were no > controversy about making policy recommendations in principle, there > will always be particular issues on which it would not be appropriate > to do so (perhaps the emerging issue is still evolving quickly). > > My second objection is that the suggested replacement is far too > limiting as it is not only pursuant to 72(g) on recommendations that > the IGF could produce non-binding outputs. A document might also need > to be produced by the IGF in order to facilitate discourse between or > to interface with other bodies, or to propose ways and means to > accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the > developing world, or to assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet governance processes, or to find solutions to the issues > arising from the use and misuse of the Internet... or indeed in almost > any of the paragraphs of its mandate. > > As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may suffer", > which waters it down to a similar extent as has been proposed for the > other paragraphs accepted by Ian. Beyond that though, this is looking > less and less like a civil society statement and more like the kind of > thing ISOC might put out. Frankly as Parminder has observed, if the > IGC doesn't have the guts to push for increased civil society input > into Internet policy development processes, I'm not sure who will. The > end result is that consumer voices will continue to be disempowered > and sidelined in favour of the incumbent government and big business > interests. > I completely agree. and also am firmly of the opinion that this part may not be diluted any further than the compromise "may suffer" that Jeremy has offered. I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is not really so much his view (correct me if I am wrong but that is what I read from his email) but that of some significant others. Now who are these hidden others who do not want to step up and share their views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can go without their views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it is entirely their choice. Ironical that we, through the suggested alternative text, are asking for a discussion on the subject (with a highly prejudiced language used in such asking) when we our selves in the IGC are not ready to discuss it. We have put forward a good number of arguments for more specific outcomes from the IGF and havent received a response. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 02:16:24 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:16:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 In-Reply-To: <81695573-96EE-428B-896C-580035B48041@ciroap.org> References: <81695573-96EE-428B-896C-580035B48041@ciroap.org> Message-ID: aplogies for my absence, still om holiday: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>> 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, >>> Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >>> contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does >>> not prove its value to the international community by adopting >>> mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on Internet >>> public policy issues.] >>> >>> or change to Bill's suggestion of: >>> >>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where >>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the >>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC >>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly >>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of >>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have >>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it >>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder >>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate >>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's >>> unique character." >> >> Yes I like Bill's text I prefer Bills text as well. > > I don't like it at all I'm afraid (sorry Bill) - and I should also note that > despite the highlighting of **NON-BINDING** above suggesting that this > wording was a change, in fact it wasn't - it was in my original. > > I'm not going to raise a fuss about the other compromises, but I think I > have to stand my ground on this one.  First, it exaggerates the effect of > the qualifier "where appropriate".  Those words cannot be used to detract > from the mandate.  Raising even the possibility that it might *never* be > appropriate to make recommendations, is effectively to abrogate paragraph > 72(g) altogether. Perhaps it's just recognizing that in some cases, it may NOT be appropriate to make recomendations!  Nobody has the authority to do that - and still less > should civil society be suggesting it!  What could it possibly gain us to > rule out the possibility that civil society could ever have real input into > development of Internet public policy through a multi-stakeholder > deliberative process? One doesn't neccessarily lead from the other. > > If anything we should advocate for the *narrowest* possible interpretation > of "where appropriate"; for example, to say that the qualifier is basically > redundant - as even if there were no controversy about making policy > recommendations in principle, there will always be particular issues on > which it would not be appropriate to do so (perhaps the emerging issue is > still evolving quickly). > > My second objection is that the suggested replacement is far too limiting as > it is not only pursuant to 72(g) on recommendations that the IGF could > produce non-binding outputs.  A document might also need to be produced by > the IGF in order to facilitate discourse between or to interface with other > bodies, or to propose ways and means to accelerate the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world, or to assess the > embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, or to find > solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet... > or indeed in almost any of the paragraphs of its mandate. > > As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may suffer", I can live with that. which > waters it down to a similar extent as has been proposed for the other > paragraphs accepted by Ian.  Beyond that though, this is looking less and > less like a civil society statement and more like the kind of thing ISOC > might put out. umm ISOC is CS, just not the SYL wing.  Frankly as Parminder has observed, if the IGC doesn't have > the guts to push for increased civil society input into Internet policy > development processes, I'm not sure who will.  The end result is that > consumer voices will continue to be disempowered and sidelined in favour of > the incumbent government and big business interests. If you want to be involved in Internet policy developmnet processes, then I suggest you join som IETF orAPNIC lists rather than focus on the IGF. It seems I am one ofthe "slient majority" (Nixon's term IIRC) that Parminder is curious about. We are here, and it was polite for Bill to speak for us. Now I return to my sandcastles on the beach. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jul 16 02:57:42 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:57:42 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 In-Reply-To: <4A5EBBC7.5060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Just so my position is clear I am happy with the ³may suffer² compromise, or alternatively with Bill¹s text. But as others are clearly opposed to Bill¹s text and it won¹t pass consensus, I will not oppose ³may suffer². The question now is whether inclusion with ³may suffer² will be accepted in a consensus statement or whether the whole paragraph should be dropped. My reading is the paragraph should be in the text unless a a significant number of people oppose it. What say ye? Do we include or not include the following paragraph Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >>>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >>>> contends that the IGF as a whole may suffer in the long term if it does >>>> not prove its value to the international community by adopting >>>> mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues. On 16/07/09 3:33 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > Comments below. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >>> >>>> 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, >>>> Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new >>>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more >>>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC >>>> contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does >>>> not prove its value to the international community by adopting >>>> mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on Internet >>>> public policy issues.] >>>> >>>> or change to Bill's suggestion of: >>>> >>>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where >>>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the >>>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC >>>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly >>>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of >>>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have >>>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it >>>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder >>>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate >>>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's >>>> unique character." >>>> >>> >>> Yes I like Bill's text >>> >> >> I don't like it at all I'm afraid (sorry Bill) - and I should also note that >> despite the highlighting of **NON-BINDING** above suggesting that this >> wording was a change, in fact it wasn't - it was in my original. >> >> I'm not going to raise a fuss about the other compromises, but I think I have >> to stand my ground on this one. First, it exaggerates the effect of the >> qualifier "where appropriate". Those words cannot be used to detract from >> the mandate. Raising even the possibility that it might *never* be >> appropriate to make recommendations, is effectively to abrogate paragraph >> 72(g) altogether. Nobody has the authority to do that - and still less >> should civil society be suggesting it! What could it possibly gain us to >> rule out the possibility that civil society could ever have real input into >> development of Internet public policy through a multi-stakeholder >> deliberative process? >> >> If anything we should advocate for the *narrowest* possible interpretation of >> "where appropriate"; for example, to say that the qualifier is basically >> redundant - as even if there were no controversy about making policy >> recommendations in principle, there will always be particular issues on which >> it would not be appropriate to do so (perhaps the emerging issue is still >> evolving quickly). >> >> My second objection is that the suggested replacement is far too limiting as >> it is not only pursuant to 72(g) on recommendations that the IGF could >> produce non-binding outputs. A document might also need to be produced by >> the IGF in order to facilitate discourse between or to interface with other >> bodies, or to propose ways and means to accelerate the availability and >> affordability of the Internet in the developing world, or to assess the >> embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, or to find >> solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet... or >> indeed in almost any of the paragraphs of its mandate. >> >> As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may suffer", which >> waters it down to a similar extent as has been proposed for the other >> paragraphs accepted by Ian. Beyond that though, this is looking less and >> less like a civil society statement and more like the kind of thing ISOC >> might put out. Frankly as Parminder has observed, if the IGC doesn't have >> the guts to push for increased civil society input into Internet policy >> development processes, I'm not sure who will. The end result is that >> consumer voices will continue to be disempowered and sidelined in favour of >> the incumbent government and big business interests. >> > > I completely agree. and also am firmly of the opinion that this part may not > be diluted any further than the compromise "may suffer" that Jeremy has > offered. > > I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of it. Ian did > agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the whole statement as it > stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is not really so much his view > (correct me if I am wrong but that is what I read from his email) but that of > some significant others. Now who are these hidden others who do not want to > step up and share their views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can > go without their views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based > consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it is entirely > their choice. > > Ironical that we, through the suggested alternative text, are asking for a > discussion on the subject (with a highly prejudiced language used in such > asking) when we our selves in the IGC are not ready to discuss it. We have > put forward a good number of arguments for more specific outcomes from the IGF > and havent received a response. parminder > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 03:58:36 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:58:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> <4A5DC2BC.4060906@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <954259bd0907160058t1631a107ue62a167aada14e9b@mail.gmail.com> Dear Wolfgang, Thanks for highlighting this paper. If the reader is patient enough to go until almost the end of it, he/she will find these two interesting paragraphs : *"A Cyber Monroe Doctrine must also accommodate the fundamental architecture of the Internet. Since the value of the Internet is driven by network effects, policies that decrease the value of the Internet through (real or perceived) balkanization will harm all participants. While a Cyber Monroe Doctrine can identify specific critical cyber infrastructure of interest to the U.S., parts of the cyber infrastructure are critical to all global stakeholders. In short, even as the United States may have a cybersphere of influence, there are nonetheless cybercommons. This is all the more true as attacks or attackers move through or use the infrastructure of those cybercommons. Therefore, the US must find mechanisms to be inclusive rather than exclusive when it comes to stewardship and defense of our cybercommons" *. (emphasis added) and *"Taking a unilateral approach will at times be simply impossible, and may not offer the quickest path to success. However, working collaboratively with other governments and stakeholders not only builds our collective capacity to defend critical infrastructures around the world, but also ensures that our weakest links do not become havens for cyber criminals or terrorists"*. These simple paragraphs are the best deconstruction of the whole argument in the rest of the paper : a Monroe Doctrine of "what is mine is mine" (actually a misinterpretation of the actual Monroe doctrine, but never mind), and drawing "lines in the sand", maybe viable in a territorial, traditional sovereignty-type of approach, is less adapted to a shared infrastructure where network effects are major. Here more than in anything else, joint efforts are indispensable to protect and ensure the resilience of the infrastructure that is today essential to the functioning of all societies. This is not about being naive : there are cyber-threats, the issue is real and deserves a lot of attention. But it is clear that a "Monroe Doctrine", which is often described as the historic isolationist and non-interventionist leg of the US foreign policy, is too close to unilateralism in spirit not to lead to a devastating arms race through the development of mistrust. In a year when the new US president dares to set the ambitious goal of a world without nuclear weapons, maybe some lessons can be drawn from the past. At the beggining of the XXth century, former French Premier, Georges Clemenceau, famously said : "War is too important to be left to the military". As Mary Ann Davidson concedes herself, cooperation among all stakeholders will be more essential on the issue of cybersecurity and cyber-war than in any other domain. This may therefore be the litmus test of the credibility of the multi-stakeholder approach : will serious MS discussions prove able to address this common challenge in an innovative and productive manner ? I hope so. How and where they can be organised is still open. Best Bertrand P.S. : The above comments are made on a personal basis and not in any official capacity. 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she > proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended > version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. > > If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the > contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, > that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, > what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the > diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look > rather different. > > Wolfgang > > http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jul 16 04:16:57 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:16:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Just so my position is clear I am happy with the “may suffer” > compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text. But as others are > clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass consensus, I will > not oppose “may suffer”. The question now is whether inclusion with > “may suffer” will be accepted in a consensus statement or whether > the whole paragraph should be dropped. My reading is the paragraph > should be in the text unless a a significant number of people oppose > it. Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. McTim is opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than substantive grounds. Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate (yes, that's what would be involved) recs necessarily would turn out to be disaster---it would depend on a whole bunch of unknowns about modalities and focus etc on which open dialogue would be needed to arrive at some clarity. Equally, I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate recs necessarily would be a panacea for all that ails the IGF, or IG more generally. But re: the former, I am definitely convinced that we cannot move forward via processes in which one side of a polarized discussion wins by sheer persistence, waving away the other side's views, implying that if people don't agree then they are spineless jellyfish unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc. How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all want an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is beyond me. Even for people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I don't think insisting on this ex ante makes tactical sense. Calling for an open dialogue on the matter would seem more likely to provide a lever to nudge things in the "right" direction (let's see who would stand up and oppose an open dialogue) than simply demanding something that many other key parties strongly oppose. On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote: > > I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of > it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the > whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is not > really so much his view (correct me if I am wrong but that is what I > read from his email) but that of some significant others. Now who > are these hidden others who do not want to step up and share their > views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can go without > their views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based > consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it is > entirely their choice. We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four years now. Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I think we expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, those of us in the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in writing the text that morphed into the TA mandate---because at that point the IGF was an abstraction, and some of us certainly were hoping for a more substantial institutional formation in which it could have worked. But after IGF was established, basically as an annual conference, people's thinking evolved in different directions, and I don't recall (anyone else?) that we ever again expressed support for recs in the many caucus statements to follow. I don't have time to go digging through the list archive, particularly since our subject lines are frequently not indicative of message content, but at various points along the way I believe that people like Wolfgang, Jeanette, and Adam have spoken against recs (don't want to put words in their mouths, they can please correct me if I'm wrong) and that others have as well. That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their previously expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze you lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making. Of course, if those who opposed before now want to reverse and support rec negotiations, that would change things, but absent that it's not a consensus position in my view. Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jul 16 04:50:33 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:50:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0907160058t1631a107ue62a167aada14e9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> <4A5DC2BC.4060906@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0907160058t1631a107ue62a167aada14e9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0A07A97B-EFA2-43BB-8CCA-0F36D5F466C5@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Jul 16, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > These simple paragraphs are the best deconstruction of the whole > argument in the rest of the paper : a Monroe Doctrine of "what is > mine is mine" (actually a misinterpretation of the actual Monroe > doctrine, but never mind), It sure is. The MD was about keeping the European powers out of Latin America at a time when decolonization and moves toward independence were underway, and it was accordingly welcomed by many there. The obnoxious Roosevelt Corollary mandate for neo-imperialism was like 80 years later. So the MD is a bit different from what's mine is mine or even what's yours is mine. Hardly necessary to promote critical infrastructure protection within the US, and as Bertrand notes, she anyway calls for international collaboration, the opposite of MD, on transnational extensions. This is just the kind of labeling and marketing spin people employ to get attention in DC. It's a very crowded ideasphere, and the incentives to dress things up in gaudy Technicolor are substantial. Maybe she'll get an op-ed invite from the Wall St. Journal, maybe some Republican yahoo will invite her to testify on the hill or speak at the American Enterprise Institute, but then attention will drift. The US will not be declaring a MD for cyberspace. Next, Bill ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jul 16 04:52:29 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:52:29 +1000 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Thanks Bill, My read, given your message, and also the strongly opposing messages as regards the text from Jeremy and Parminder, is that we should leave the text out altogether. Unless someone has a good compromise to suggest in the next hour or two before Ginger submits the final version for consensus. I think its over now to Jeremy and Parminder and others who wont accept your text as to whether a text such as yours calling for further discussion on the issue is more acceptable than saying nothing at all. So let me now put the question the other way ­ should Bills text be included or amended to be acceptable, or do we say nothing about recommendations? >>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where >>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the >>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC >>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly >>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of >>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have >>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it >>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder >>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate >>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's >>> unique character." On 16/07/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Just so my position is clear I am happy with the ³may suffer² compromise, or >> alternatively with Bill¹s text. But as others are clearly opposed to Bill¹s >> text and it won¹t pass consensus, I will not oppose ³may suffer². The >> question now is whether inclusion with ³may suffer² will be accepted in a >> consensus statement or whether the whole paragraph should be dropped. My >> reading is the paragraph should be in the text unless a a significant number >> of people oppose it. > > Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. McTim is > opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than substantive grounds. Re: > the latter, I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate (yes, that's what would > be involved) recs necessarily would turn out to be disaster---it would depend > on a whole bunch of unknowns about modalities and focus etc on which open > dialogue would be needed to arrive at some clarity. Equally, I'm not > convinced that trying to negotiate recs necessarily would be a panacea for all > that ails the IGF, or IG more generally. But re: the former, I am definitely > convinced that we cannot move forward via processes in which one side of a > polarized discussion wins by sheer persistence, waving away the other side's > views, implying that if people don't agree then they are spineless jellyfish > unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc. > > How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all want an open > dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is beyond me. Even for people > who want the IGF to be doing recs, I don't think insisting on this ex ante > makes tactical sense. Calling for an open dialogue on the matter would seem > more likely to provide a lever to nudge things in the "right" direction (let's > see who would stand up and oppose an open dialogue) than simply demanding > something that many other key parties strongly oppose. > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote: >> >> I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of it. Ian >> did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the whole statement as >> it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is not really so much his view >> (correct me if I am wrong but that is what I read from his email) but that >> of some significant others. Now who are these hidden others who do not want >> to step up and share their views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement >> can go without their views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation >> based consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it is >> entirely their choice. > > We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four years now. > Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I think we expressed cautious > support for the idea of recs--indeed, those of us in the WGIG CS contingent > were much involved in writing the text that morphed into the TA > mandate---because at that point the IGF was an abstraction, and some of us > certainly were hoping for a more substantial institutional formation in which > it could have worked. But after IGF was established, basically as an annual > conference, people's thinking evolved in different directions, and I don't > recall (anyone else?) that we ever again expressed support for recs in the > many caucus statements to follow. I don't have time to go digging through > the list archive, particularly since our subject lines are frequently not > indicative of message content, but at various points along the way I believe > that people like Wolfgang, Jeanette, and Adam have spoken against recs (don't > want to put words in their mouths, they can please correct me if I'm wrong) > and that others have as well. > > That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in this > discussion does not mean we should just wave away their previously expressed > stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze you lose" is not a good basis for > consensus decision making. Of course, if those who opposed before now want to > reverse and support rec negotiations, that would change things, but absent > that it's not a consensus position in my view. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jul 16 05:08:49 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:08:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 In-Reply-To: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> References: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger On Jul 16, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > 1) > Q1: **[In this connection, IGF IS STILL TO ACHIEVE ANY CLEAR SUCCESS > in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with > different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the > Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter- > governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under > their purview' (72 c). ]** > > Could we say: (I think this is somewhat stronger than Ian's: IGF > "may need to extend its efforts in") Fine by me Ok > > 2) > Q2 the issue of rights, particularly: > **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of > rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and > principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a > minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation > of the IGF.]** > > Note that the at question 2, the questionnaire itself http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009) > has a link to the WSIS declaration of principles http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html I'm sorry but this means nothing. We can't reinterpret the whole history of negotiations and tell governments you think you agreed to x but actually you agreed to y because Chengetai or whomever put a link to the whole doc rather than correct section, which isn't possible in this case. > > On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 > articles of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I > agree with Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs? By recognizing that these are references to the UDHR etc at the front of a text about the info society generally, not a statement that multilingual domain names, net stability, transparency or anything else are recognized by the parties as rights. Which again is not to say that one couldn't view and advocate those points from a rights perspective. The ONLY "right" that is specifically mentioned/agreed in the WSIS principles on IG is in 49, which says states have the (apparently exclusive) right to make public policy. > > 4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options-- > (Q6 also) > A) that we use this shortened version: > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster > greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage > of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns Agree > in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and > gender. FWIW the caucus has previously made statements about the need for the IGF to focus on IG per se rather than ICT4D and questioning unclear links to environmental policy. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 16 05:11:51 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:41:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A5EEED7.8080305@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Just so my position is clear I am happy with the "may suffer" >> compromise, or alternatively with Bill's text. But as others are >> clearly opposed to Bill's text and it won't pass consensus, I will >> not oppose "may suffer". The question now is whether inclusion with >> "may suffer" will be accepted in a consensus statement or whether the >> whole paragraph should be dropped. My reading is the paragraph should >> be in the text unless a a significant number of people oppose it. > > Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. > McTim is opposed, He said, ' I can live with that' to Jeremy's ' As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may suffer" as the only direct comment on the text under discussion. > and I'm opposed, on procedural more than substantive grounds. Completely misses me.... Why dont you just tell what you want. Can we just hear your views on the subject. Coordinators can decide the procedure. Franky, and I am sorry to be blunt, the following para really hasnt conveyed much to me at all. Basically, if I read it right, you are saying that you really have not much problem in our seeking non-binding statement in the soft manner that the present draft seeks it - but, you have a problem that we are going ahead with adopting a text when some *other* people are opposed to it. Who??? We come back to the same question. Why cant you be clearer, Bill. > Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate (yes, > that's what would be involved) recs necessarily would turn out to be > disaster---it would depend on a whole bunch of unknowns about > modalities and focus etc on which open dialogue would be needed to > arrive at some clarity. Equally, I'm not convinced that trying to > negotiate recs necessarily would be a panacea for all that ails the > IGF, or IG more generally. Is there a panacea for anything anywhere. thats a very weak argument which can be used against practically every act. Can we have something more solid please. This is holding up an important IGC statement. > But re: the former, I am definitely convinced that we cannot move > forward via processes in which one side of a polarized discussion wins > by sheer persistence, waving away the other side's views, implying > that if people don't agree then they are spineless jellyfish unwilling > to stand up for the public interest, etc. No, there is no problem with holding one view or the other- who can be sure which one is more in public interest. But not to hold a view, and say i am doing it for others, which others not being clear - well, yes, i do have some problem with it. > > How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all want > an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is beyond me. There has been a mail or two holding a somewhat different view on practically everything we have ever adopted as IGC statement. So then why not have every one of our statement say - some think so but others also think so - some what rights others are not so sure - some see IGF as a valuable organisation others do not, some want CIRs discussed others do not, ............ We will look like a really effective advocacy group, that we set ourselves out to be in our mandate. parminder > Even for people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I don't think > insisting on this ex ante makes tactical sense. Calling for an open > dialogue on the matter would seem more likely to provide a lever to > nudge things in the "right" direction (let's see who would stand up > and oppose an open dialogue) than simply demanding something that many > other key parties strongly oppose. > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote: >> >> I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of >> it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the >> whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is not >> really so much his view (correct me if I am wrong but that is what I >> read from his email) but that of some significant others. Now who >> are these hidden others who do not want to step up and share their >> views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can go without their >> views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based consensus, >> and if people do not want to submit to this then it is entirely their >> choice. > > We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four years > now. Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I think we > expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, those of us > in the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in writing the text that > morphed into the TA mandate---because at that point the IGF was an > abstraction, and some of us certainly were hoping for a more > substantial institutional formation in which it could have worked. > But after IGF was established, basically as an annual conference, > people's thinking evolved in different directions, and I don't recall > (anyone else?) that we ever again expressed support for recs in the > many caucus statements to follow. I don't have time to go digging > through the list archive, particularly since our subject lines are > frequently not indicative of message content, but at various points > along the way I believe that people like Wolfgang, Jeanette, and Adam > have spoken against recs (don't want to put words in their mouths, > they can please correct me if I'm wrong) and that others have as well. > > That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in > this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their > previously expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze you > lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making. Of course, > if those who opposed before now want to reverse and support rec > negotiations, that would change things, but absent that it's not a > consensus position in my view. > > Best, > > Bill > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jul 16 05:17:52 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:17:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15) In-Reply-To: <5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: On 16/07/2009, at 4:16 PM, William Drake wrote: > How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all > want an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is beyond > me. I explained in my last message, but in brief it gives away more ground than it needs to, by conceding that recommendations might not be appropriate in any conceivable circumstances. Also, it's not even accurate to say that "IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met". In fact they haven't addressed their minds to this point at all. I don't recall anyone ever saying, "Well yes the IGF could make recommendations, except for this requirement of appropriateness". They haven't even gotten to that point - rather they have harped on the fact that the IGF has no mechanism to produce recommendations, and implying that no such mechanism is possible without destroying the IGF as we know it. So maybe the existing text isn't perfect, but perhaps then anyone who is opposed to it should suggest how to improve it rather than either deleting it altogether or replacing it with text that places an unwarranted shadow over recommendations in any form. > Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. > McTim is opposed, No he isn't, he said he could live with the existing text after changing "will suffer" to "may suffer". So in my view it should be put to a consensus call as it stands... -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 16 05:20:57 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:50:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> Ian I sent my last email without seeing this one. As I see we only have Bill opposing the 'text' and that too - and he makes it explicit - on procedural ground. And the ground is that we cannot adopt the text because there is some opposition to it - which opposition, it is not clear. I think it is for the coordinators to judge this fact whether there is any opposition. Bill himself suggests the has no strong opposition (if at all) to the text on substantive grounds. We have also earlier adopted by rough consensus. In light of the above i am not sure on which basis the text is being rejected. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks Bill, > > My read, given your message, and also the strongly opposing messages > as regards the text from Jeremy and Parminder, is that we should leave > the text out altogether. Unless someone has a good compromise to > suggest in the next hour or two before Ginger submits the final > version for consensus. > > I think its over now to Jeremy and Parminder and others who wont > accept your text as to whether a text such as yours calling for > further discussion on the issue is more acceptable than saying nothing > at all. So let me now put the question the other way -- should Bills > text be included or amended to be acceptable, or do we say nothing > about recommendations? > > > > >>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where > >>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the > >>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC > >>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly > >>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of > >>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have > >>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC > believes it > >>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder > >>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate > >>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's > >>> unique character." > > > On 16/07/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" > wrote: > > Hi > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Just so my position is clear I am happy with the "may suffer" > compromise, or alternatively with Bill's text. But as others > are clearly opposed to Bill's text and it won't pass > consensus, I will not oppose "may suffer". The question now > is whether inclusion with "may suffer" will be accepted in a > consensus statement or whether the whole paragraph should be > dropped. My reading is the paragraph should be in the text > unless a a significant number of people oppose it. > > > Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. > McTim is opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than > substantive grounds. Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that > trying to negotiate (yes, that's what would be involved) recs > necessarily would turn out to be disaster---it would depend on a > whole bunch of unknowns about modalities and focus etc on which > open dialogue would be needed to arrive at some clarity. Equally, > I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate recs necessarily would > be a panacea for all that ails the IGF, or IG more generally. But > re: the former, I am definitely convinced that we cannot move > forward via processes in which one side of a polarized discussion > wins by sheer persistence, waving away the other side's views, > implying that if people don't agree then they are spineless > jellyfish unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc. > > How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all > want an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is > beyond me. Even for people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I > don't think insisting on this ex ante makes tactical sense. > Calling for an open dialogue on the matter would seem more likely > to provide a lever to nudge things in the "right" direction (let's > see who would stand up and oppose an open dialogue) than simply > demanding something that many other key parties strongly oppose. > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > I am not sure about the other side's position, and the > firmness of it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' > part - and to the whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly > suggested that it is not really so much his view (correct me > if I am wrong but that is what I read from his email) but > that of some significant others. Now who are these hidden > others who do not want to step up and share their views. And > if they do not care to, IGC statement can go without their > views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based > consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it > is entirely their choice. > > > We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four > years now. Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I > think we expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, > those of us in the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in > writing the text that morphed into the TA mandate---because at > that point the IGF was an abstraction, and some of us certainly > were hoping for a more substantial institutional formation in > which it could have worked. But after IGF was established, > basically as an annual conference, people's thinking evolved in > different directions, and I don't recall (anyone else?) that we > ever again expressed support for recs in the many caucus > statements to follow. I don't have time to go digging through > the list archive, particularly since our subject lines are > frequently not indicative of message content, but at various > points along the way I believe that people like Wolfgang, > Jeanette, and Adam have spoken against recs (don't want to put > words in their mouths, they can please correct me if I'm wrong) > and that others have as well. > > That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in > this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their > previously expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze > you lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making. Of > course, if those who opposed before now want to reverse and > support rec negotiations, that would change things, but absent > that it's not a consensus position in my view. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jul 16 06:07:07 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:07:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> Sorry Parminder but it is not a good move to isolate Bill in this discussion. Bill is right, we know from earlier discussions on the matter of recommendations that lots of (otherwise) actively participating members of this caucus are skeptical or opposed to IGF recommendations. Personally, I am ambivalent about recommendations because I think they might come at a high prize. Also, I wouldn't want recommendations to be installed from the top. I prefer an approach where workshops and groups come together around a specific issues, agree on recommendations and have other participants sign on to them. Such a bottom up approach may lead to forms of institutionalization that are more healthy and sustainable than initiatives from the top. The same is true for national or regional IGFs. I wouldn't want the MAG, or whowever, to plan and implement them. Such initiatives have to come from the regions themselves. While I can live with "may suffer" as a compromise, I certainly don't believe this to be true and therefore don't support it. jeanette Parminder wrote: > Ian > > I sent my last email without seeing this one. > > As I see we only have Bill opposing the 'text' and that too - and he > makes it explicit - on procedural ground. And the ground is that we > cannot adopt the text because there is some opposition to it - which > opposition, it is not clear. I think it is for the coordinators to judge > this fact whether there is any opposition. Bill himself suggests the has > no strong opposition (if at all) to the text on substantive grounds. > > We have also earlier adopted by rough consensus. > > In light of the above i am not sure on which basis the text is being > rejected. > > Parminder > > > Ian Peter wrote: >> Thanks Bill, >> >> My read, given your message, and also the strongly opposing messages >> as regards the text from Jeremy and Parminder, is that we should leave >> the text out altogether. Unless someone has a good compromise to >> suggest in the next hour or two before Ginger submits the final >> version for consensus. >> >> I think its over now to Jeremy and Parminder and others who wont >> accept your text as to whether a text such as yours calling for >> further discussion on the issue is more acceptable than saying nothing >> at all. So let me now put the question the other way – should Bills >> text be included or amended to be acceptable, or do we say nothing >> about recommendations? >> >> >> >> >>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where >> >>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the >> >>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC >> >>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly >> >>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of >> >>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have >> >>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC >> believes it >> >>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder >> >>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate >> >>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's >> >>> unique character." >> >> >> On 16/07/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" >> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> Just so my position is clear I am happy with the “may suffer” >> compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text. But as others >> are clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass >> consensus, I will not oppose “may suffer”. The question now >> is whether inclusion with “may suffer” will be accepted in a >> consensus statement or whether the whole paragraph should be >> dropped. My reading is the paragraph should be in the text >> unless a a significant number of people oppose it. >> >> >> Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. >> McTim is opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than >> substantive grounds. Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that >> trying to negotiate (yes, that's what would be involved) recs >> necessarily would turn out to be disaster---it would depend on a >> whole bunch of unknowns about modalities and focus etc on which >> open dialogue would be needed to arrive at some clarity. Equally, >> I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate recs necessarily would >> be a panacea for all that ails the IGF, or IG more generally. But >> re: the former, I am definitely convinced that we cannot move >> forward via processes in which one side of a polarized discussion >> wins by sheer persistence, waving away the other side's views, >> implying that if people don't agree then they are spineless >> jellyfish unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc. >> >> How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all >> want an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is >> beyond me. Even for people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I >> don't think insisting on this ex ante makes tactical sense. >> Calling for an open dialogue on the matter would seem more likely >> to provide a lever to nudge things in the "right" direction (let's >> see who would stand up and oppose an open dialogue) than simply >> demanding something that many other key parties strongly oppose. >> >> On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote: >> >> >> I am not sure about the other side's position, and the >> firmness of it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' >> part - and to the whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly >> suggested that it is not really so much his view (correct me >> if I am wrong but that is what I read from his email) but >> that of some significant others. Now who are these hidden >> others who do not want to step up and share their views. And >> if they do not care to, IGC statement can go without their >> views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based >> consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it >> is entirely their choice. >> >> >> We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four >> years now. Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I >> think we expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, >> those of us in the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in >> writing the text that morphed into the TA mandate---because at >> that point the IGF was an abstraction, and some of us certainly >> were hoping for a more substantial institutional formation in >> which it could have worked. But after IGF was established, >> basically as an annual conference, people's thinking evolved in >> different directions, and I don't recall (anyone else?) that we >> ever again expressed support for recs in the many caucus >> statements to follow. I don't have time to go digging through >> the list archive, particularly since our subject lines are >> frequently not indicative of message content, but at various >> points along the way I believe that people like Wolfgang, >> Jeanette, and Adam have spoken against recs (don't want to put >> words in their mouths, they can please correct me if I'm wrong) >> and that others have as well. >> >> That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in >> this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their >> previously expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze >> you lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making. Of >> course, if those who opposed before now want to reverse and >> support rec negotiations, that would change things, but absent >> that it's not a consensus position in my view. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 16 06:31:49 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:01:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A5F0195.5050109@itforchange.net> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Sorry Parminder but it is not a good move to isolate Bill in this > discussion. I am not trying to isolate anyone. I am asking for his substantive views, and trying to do the same discussion on recs - why they may need to be made and what dangers if any, all the pros and the cons - that his suggested 'text' wants the wider community to do. Somehow it is never the right time to do such discussions - when we are preparing statements it is not the right time, and at other times it isnt the right time either. > Bill is right, we know from earlier discussions on the matter of > recommendations that lots of (otherwise) actively participating > members of this caucus are skeptical or opposed to IGF recommendations. Who are these. McTim used be one, but he agrees to the present compromise text. IF you can is suggest other names I can try to engage with them. This is an important statement which gives IGC views on how the IGF should go forward. We cant just keep it bland. Anyways, I do hope my own views and perspectives will be as zealously safegaurded in my absence :) . > Personally, I am ambivalent about recommendations because I think they > might come at a high prize. I think the price of continued policy vacuums at the global level - to help do something about was the reason for creation of the IGF - may be a much higher, that we will have to pay. > Also, I wouldn't want recommendations to be installed from the top. I > prefer an approach where workshops and groups come together around a > specific issues, agree on recommendations and have other participants > sign on to them. Such a bottom up approach may lead to forms of > institutionalization that are more healthy and sustainable than > initiatives from the top. The proposed text remains silent on the way recs can be developed - we all know this is a difficult path to chart, but we are only putting forward over view that some such recs may increasingly be more important to get from the IGF. So the text does no way go against your preferred approach. parminder > > The same is true for national or regional IGFs. I wouldn't want the > MAG, or whowever, to plan and implement them. Such initiatives have to > come from the regions themselves. > > While I can live with "may suffer" as a compromise, I certainly don't > believe this to be true and therefore don't support it. > > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: >> Ian >> >> I sent my last email without seeing this one. >> >> As I see we only have Bill opposing the 'text' and that too - and he >> makes it explicit - on procedural ground. And the ground is that we >> cannot adopt the text because there is some opposition to it - which >> opposition, it is not clear. I think it is for the coordinators to >> judge this fact whether there is any opposition. Bill himself >> suggests the has no strong opposition (if at all) to the text on >> substantive grounds. >> >> We have also earlier adopted by rough consensus. >> >> In light of the above i am not sure on which basis the text is >> being rejected. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >>> Thanks Bill, >>> >>> My read, given your message, and also the strongly opposing messages >>> as regards the text from Jeremy and Parminder, is that we should >>> leave the text out altogether. Unless someone has a good compromise >>> to suggest in the next hour or two before Ginger submits the final >>> version for consensus. >>> >>> I think its over now to Jeremy and Parminder and others who wont >>> accept your text as to whether a text such as yours calling for >>> further discussion on the issue is more acceptable than saying >>> nothing at all. So let me now put the question the other way – >>> should Bills text be included or amended to be acceptable, or do we >>> say nothing about recommendations? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where >>> >>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the >>> >>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC >>> >>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly >>> >>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of >>> >>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter >>> have >>> >>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC >>> believes it >>> >>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing >>> multistakeholder >>> >>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be >>> appropriate >>> >>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's >>> >>> unique character." >>> >>> >>> On 16/07/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> Just so my position is clear I am happy with the “may suffer” >>> compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text. But as others >>> are clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass >>> consensus, I will not oppose “may suffer”. The question now >>> is whether inclusion with “may suffer” will be accepted in a >>> consensus statement or whether the whole paragraph should be >>> dropped. My reading is the paragraph should be in the text >>> unless a a significant number of people oppose it. >>> >>> >>> Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. >>> McTim is opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than >>> substantive grounds. Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that >>> trying to negotiate (yes, that's what would be involved) recs >>> necessarily would turn out to be disaster---it would depend on a >>> whole bunch of unknowns about modalities and focus etc on which >>> open dialogue would be needed to arrive at some clarity. Equally, >>> I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate recs necessarily would >>> be a panacea for all that ails the IGF, or IG more generally. But >>> re: the former, I am definitely convinced that we cannot move >>> forward via processes in which one side of a polarized discussion >>> wins by sheer persistence, waving away the other side's views, >>> implying that if people don't agree then they are spineless >>> jellyfish unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc. >>> How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all >>> want an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is >>> beyond me. Even for people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I >>> don't think insisting on this ex ante makes tactical sense. >>> Calling for an open dialogue on the matter would seem more likely >>> to provide a lever to nudge things in the "right" direction (let's >>> see who would stand up and oppose an open dialogue) than simply >>> demanding something that many other key parties strongly oppose. >>> >>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am not sure about the other side's position, and the >>> firmness of it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' >>> part - and to the whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly >>> suggested that it is not really so much his view (correct me >>> if I am wrong but that is what I read from his email) but >>> that of some significant others. Now who are these hidden >>> others who do not want to step up and share their views. And >>> if they do not care to, IGC statement can go without their >>> views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based >>> consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it >>> is entirely their choice. >>> >>> >>> We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four >>> years now. Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I >>> think we expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, >>> those of us in the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in >>> writing the text that morphed into the TA mandate---because at >>> that point the IGF was an abstraction, and some of us certainly >>> were hoping for a more substantial institutional formation in >>> which it could have worked. But after IGF was established, >>> basically as an annual conference, people's thinking evolved in >>> different directions, and I don't recall (anyone else?) that we >>> ever again expressed support for recs in the many caucus >>> statements to follow. I don't have time to go digging through >>> the list archive, particularly since our subject lines are >>> frequently not indicative of message content, but at various >>> points along the way I believe that people like Wolfgang, >>> Jeanette, and Adam have spoken against recs (don't want to put >>> words in their mouths, they can please correct me if I'm wrong) >>> and that others have as well. >>> That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in >>> this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their >>> previously expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze >>> you lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making. Of >>> course, if those who opposed before now want to reverse and >>> support rec negotiations, that would change things, but absent >>> that it's not a consensus position in my view. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 From natasha at apc.org Thu Jul 16 06:45:12 2009 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:45:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, I had to consult previous APC statements and my colleagues on this as we've taken different positions on this issue in the past ... depending on what we regarded as a more strategic intervention. With respect to this statement, we go with Bill's text (for the reasons outlined in the text.) Thanks! Natasha On 16 Jul 2009, at 10:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks Bill, > > My read, given your message, and also the strongly opposing messages > as regards the text from Jeremy and Parminder, is that we should > leave the text out altogether. Unless someone has a good compromise > to suggest in the next hour or two before Ginger submits the final > version for consensus. > > I think its over now to Jeremy and Parminder and others who wont > accept your text as to whether a text such as yours calling for > further discussion on the issue is more acceptable than saying > nothing at all. So let me now put the question the other way – > should Bills text be included or amended to be acceptable, or do we > say nothing about recommendations? > > > > >>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where > >>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the > >>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC > >>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some > strongly > >>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of > >>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter > have > >>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC > believes it > >>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing > multistakeholder > >>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be > appropriate > >>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the > IGF's > >>> unique character." > > > On 16/07/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Just so my position is clear I am happy with the “may suffer” >>> compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text. But as others are >>> clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass consensus, I >>> will not oppose “may suffer”. The question now is whether >>> inclusion with “may suffer” will be accepted in a consensus >>> statement or whether the whole paragraph should be dropped. My >>> reading is the paragraph should be in the text unless a a >>> significant number of people oppose it. >> >> Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. >> McTim is opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than >> substantive grounds. Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that trying >> to negotiate (yes, that's what would be involved) recs necessarily >> would turn out to be disaster---it would depend on a whole bunch of >> unknowns about modalities and focus etc on which open dialogue >> would be needed to arrive at some clarity. Equally, I'm not >> convinced that trying to negotiate recs necessarily would be a >> panacea for all that ails the IGF, or IG more generally. But re: >> the former, I am definitely convinced that we cannot move forward >> via processes in which one side of a polarized discussion wins by >> sheer persistence, waving away the other side's views, implying >> that if people don't agree then they are spineless jellyfish >> unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc. >> >> How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all >> want an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is beyond >> me. Even for people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I don't >> think insisting on this ex ante makes tactical sense. Calling for >> an open dialogue on the matter would seem more likely to provide a >> lever to nudge things in the "right" direction (let's see who would >> stand up and oppose an open dialogue) than simply demanding >> something that many other key parties strongly oppose. >> >> On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote: >>> >>> I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of >>> it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the >>> whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is >>> not really so much his view (correct me if I am wrong but that is >>> what I read from his email) but that of some significant others. >>> Now who are these hidden others who do not want to step up and >>> share their views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can >>> go without their views. The basis of IGC's positions is >>> deliberation based consensus, and if people do not want to submit >>> to this then it is entirely their choice. >> >> We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four >> years now. Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I think >> we expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, those >> of us in the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in writing the >> text that morphed into the TA mandate---because at that point the >> IGF was an abstraction, and some of us certainly were hoping for a >> more substantial institutional formation in which it could have >> worked. But after IGF was established, basically as an annual >> conference, people's thinking evolved in different directions, and >> I don't recall (anyone else?) that we ever again expressed support >> for recs in the many caucus statements to follow. I don't have >> time to go digging through the list archive, particularly since our >> subject lines are frequently not indicative of message content, but >> at various points along the way I believe that people like >> Wolfgang, Jeanette, and Adam have spoken against recs (don't want >> to put words in their mouths, they can please correct me if I'm >> wrong) and that others have as well. >> >> That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in >> this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their >> previously expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze you >> lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making. Of >> course, if those who opposed before now want to reverse and support >> rec negotiations, that would change things, but absent that it's >> not a consensus position in my view. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jul 16 07:01:20 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:01:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <4A5F0195.5050109@itforchange.net> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <4A5F0195.5050109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A5F0880.10509@wzb.eu> >> Also, I wouldn't want recommendations to be installed from the top. I >> prefer an approach where workshops and groups come together around a >> specific issues, agree on recommendations and have other participants >> sign on to them. Such a bottom up approach may lead to forms of >> institutionalization that are more healthy and sustainable than >> initiatives from the top. > The proposed text remains silent on the way recs can be developed My suggestion would be to let formal institutionalization follow a successful practice. We need to experiment with developing recommendations and building consensus bottom up before we ask the IGF to formally adopt this as a task. Unfortunately, I don't recall the individuals who cautioned against recommendations but, like Bill, I remember that we never had consensus on this issue. jeanette - we > all know this is a difficult path to chart, but we are only putting > forward over view that some such recs may increasingly be more important > to get from the IGF. So the text does no way go against your preferred > approach. > > parminder >> >> The same is true for national or regional IGFs. I wouldn't want the >> MAG, or whowever, to plan and implement them. Such initiatives have to >> come from the regions themselves. >> >> While I can live with "may suffer" as a compromise, I certainly don't >> believe this to be true and therefore don't support it. >> >> jeanette >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> Ian >>> >>> I sent my last email without seeing this one. >>> >>> As I see we only have Bill opposing the 'text' and that too - and he >>> makes it explicit - on procedural ground. And the ground is that we >>> cannot adopt the text because there is some opposition to it - which >>> opposition, it is not clear. I think it is for the coordinators to >>> judge this fact whether there is any opposition. Bill himself >>> suggests the has no strong opposition (if at all) to the text on >>> substantive grounds. >>> >>> We have also earlier adopted by rough consensus. >>> >>> In light of the above i am not sure on which basis the text is >>> being rejected. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>> Thanks Bill, >>>> >>>> My read, given your message, and also the strongly opposing messages >>>> as regards the text from Jeremy and Parminder, is that we should >>>> leave the text out altogether. Unless someone has a good compromise >>>> to suggest in the next hour or two before Ginger submits the final >>>> version for consensus. >>>> >>>> I think its over now to Jeremy and Parminder and others who wont >>>> accept your text as to whether a text such as yours calling for >>>> further discussion on the issue is more acceptable than saying >>>> nothing at all. So let me now put the question the other way – >>>> should Bills text be included or amended to be acceptable, or do we >>>> say nothing about recommendations? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where >>>> >>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the >>>> >>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC >>>> >>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly >>>> >>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of >>>> >>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter >>>> have >>>> >>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC >>>> believes it >>>> >>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing >>>> multistakeholder >>>> >>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be >>>> appropriate >>>> >>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's >>>> >>> unique character." >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16/07/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> Just so my position is clear I am happy with the “may suffer” >>>> compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text. But as others >>>> are clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass >>>> consensus, I will not oppose “may suffer”. The question now >>>> is whether inclusion with “may suffer” will be accepted in a >>>> consensus statement or whether the whole paragraph should be >>>> dropped. My reading is the paragraph should be in the text >>>> unless a a significant number of people oppose it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. >>>> McTim is opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than >>>> substantive grounds. Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that >>>> trying to negotiate (yes, that's what would be involved) recs >>>> necessarily would turn out to be disaster---it would depend on a >>>> whole bunch of unknowns about modalities and focus etc on which >>>> open dialogue would be needed to arrive at some clarity. Equally, >>>> I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate recs necessarily would >>>> be a panacea for all that ails the IGF, or IG more generally. But >>>> re: the former, I am definitely convinced that we cannot move >>>> forward via processes in which one side of a polarized discussion >>>> wins by sheer persistence, waving away the other side's views, >>>> implying that if people don't agree then they are spineless >>>> jellyfish unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc. >>>> How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all >>>> want an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is >>>> beyond me. Even for people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I >>>> don't think insisting on this ex ante makes tactical sense. >>>> Calling for an open dialogue on the matter would seem more likely >>>> to provide a lever to nudge things in the "right" direction (let's >>>> see who would stand up and oppose an open dialogue) than simply >>>> demanding something that many other key parties strongly oppose. >>>> >>>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure about the other side's position, and the >>>> firmness of it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' >>>> part - and to the whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly >>>> suggested that it is not really so much his view (correct me >>>> if I am wrong but that is what I read from his email) but >>>> that of some significant others. Now who are these hidden >>>> others who do not want to step up and share their views. And >>>> if they do not care to, IGC statement can go without their >>>> views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based >>>> consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it >>>> is entirely their choice. >>>> >>>> >>>> We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four >>>> years now. Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I >>>> think we expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, >>>> those of us in the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in >>>> writing the text that morphed into the TA mandate---because at >>>> that point the IGF was an abstraction, and some of us certainly >>>> were hoping for a more substantial institutional formation in >>>> which it could have worked. But after IGF was established, >>>> basically as an annual conference, people's thinking evolved in >>>> different directions, and I don't recall (anyone else?) that we >>>> ever again expressed support for recs in the many caucus >>>> statements to follow. I don't have time to go digging through >>>> the list archive, particularly since our subject lines are >>>> frequently not indicative of message content, but at various >>>> points along the way I believe that people like Wolfgang, >>>> Jeanette, and Adam have spoken against recs (don't want to put >>>> words in their mouths, they can please correct me if I'm wrong) >>>> and that others have as well. That many people are for >>>> whatever reasons are not participating in >>>> this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their >>>> previously expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze >>>> you lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making. Of >>>> course, if those who opposed before now want to reverse and >>>> support rec negotiations, that would change things, but absent >>>> that it's not a consensus position in my view. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 16 07:03:46 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:33:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5F0912.4070806@itforchange.net> Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks Bill, > > My read, given your message, and also the strongly opposing messages > as regards the text from Jeremy and Parminder, is that we should leave > the text out altogether. Unless someone has a good compromise to > suggest in the next hour or two before Ginger submits the final > version for consensus. > > I think its over now to Jeremy and Parminder and others who wont > accept your text as to whether a text such as yours calling for > further discussion on the issue is more acceptable than saying nothing > at all. So let me now put the question the other way -- should Bills > text be included or amended to be acceptable, or do we say nothing > about recommendations? I wont want Bill's text to go. It formally proposes an IGC position that the clear text on advise, recs etc in para 72 of TA may be disputed, open to review etc. I think most views on this issue that are against the original 'non-binding' text have been sitting on the fence kind, but the idea that comes out of the Bill's text is that we perhaps seek reinterpretation of TA text on IGF. Also the text to me appears prejudiced towards being quite doubtful that recs etc are possible/ practical. parminder > > > > >>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where > >>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the > >>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC > >>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly > >>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of > >>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have > >>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC > believes it > >>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder > >>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate > >>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's > >>> unique character." > > > On 16/07/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" > wrote: > > Hi > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Just so my position is clear I am happy with the "may suffer" > compromise, or alternatively with Bill's text. But as others > are clearly opposed to Bill's text and it won't pass > consensus, I will not oppose "may suffer". The question now > is whether inclusion with "may suffer" will be accepted in a > consensus statement or whether the whole paragraph should be > dropped. My reading is the paragraph should be in the text > unless a a significant number of people oppose it. > > > Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. > McTim is opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than > substantive grounds. Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that > trying to negotiate (yes, that's what would be involved) recs > necessarily would turn out to be disaster---it would depend on a > whole bunch of unknowns about modalities and focus etc on which > open dialogue would be needed to arrive at some clarity. Equally, > I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate recs necessarily would > be a panacea for all that ails the IGF, or IG more generally. But > re: the former, I am definitely convinced that we cannot move > forward via processes in which one side of a polarized discussion > wins by sheer persistence, waving away the other side's views, > implying that if people don't agree then they are spineless > jellyfish unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc. > > How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all > want an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is > beyond me. Even for people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I > don't think insisting on this ex ante makes tactical sense. > Calling for an open dialogue on the matter would seem more likely > to provide a lever to nudge things in the "right" direction (let's > see who would stand up and oppose an open dialogue) than simply > demanding something that many other key parties strongly oppose. > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > I am not sure about the other side's position, and the > firmness of it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' > part - and to the whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly > suggested that it is not really so much his view (correct me > if I am wrong but that is what I read from his email) but > that of some significant others. Now who are these hidden > others who do not want to step up and share their views. And > if they do not care to, IGC statement can go without their > views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based > consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it > is entirely their choice. > > > We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four > years now. Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I > think we expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, > those of us in the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in > writing the text that morphed into the TA mandate---because at > that point the IGF was an abstraction, and some of us certainly > were hoping for a more substantial institutional formation in > which it could have worked. But after IGF was established, > basically as an annual conference, people's thinking evolved in > different directions, and I don't recall (anyone else?) that we > ever again expressed support for recs in the many caucus > statements to follow. I don't have time to go digging through > the list archive, particularly since our subject lines are > frequently not indicative of message content, but at various > points along the way I believe that people like Wolfgang, > Jeanette, and Adam have spoken against recs (don't want to put > words in their mouths, they can please correct me if I'm wrong) > and that others have as well. > > That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in > this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their > previously expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze > you lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making. Of > course, if those who opposed before now want to reverse and > support rec negotiations, that would change things, but absent > that it's not a consensus position in my view. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 07:22:44 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:22:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, I've only been following the discussions on the satement only in the last hour or so - being stuck in my bed with an awful back ache due in part to the long economy-class flight coming back from the ICANN meeting in Sydney (would support business class tickets indeed ..). Want to congratulate Ginger for an amazing job and her patience. Just a few comments if I can help on the issue of "recommendations", with a proposed formulation in the end. 1) The title of the thread (should the IGF *negotiate* recommendations ?) goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make" recommendations). I do not think anybody in the IGC wants to go backwards on the Tunis document : the capacity of IGF to produce recommendations is in the text and it is important. What the reluctant people mean is that "negotiations" as a way to produce recommendations is the wrong way to go. The experience of those of us who participated this year in meetings like CSTD and ITU WTPF shows the danger of reverting to traditional ways of intergovernmental negotiations. 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction was made between "recommendations *by* the IGF" and "recommendations *at* the IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, including Dynamic Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc gatherings after a workshop, could take the opportunity of an IGF meeting to prepare recommendations that they would make public at the IGF and invite other actors to join. This is a truly multi-stakeholder and bottom-up approach. 3) In such an approach, some process could be envisaged for the IGF to record such recommendations in a specific rubric, like the IGF site already incorporates the reports of the workshops. In the simplest form, the reports themselves can already contain such recommendations. Because of the above, I do not think the opposition in the IGC is between those who want recommendations (as a condition of IGF's credibility) and those who oppose recommendations in general. The debate is more around how to produce something useful without getting in traditional negotiation mode. The answer in my view is that the IGF's main mission is to build consensus on 1) the correct understanding of an issue and its various dimensions, 2) the existence (or not) of a commonly agreed goal, and 3) the best procedural method to address the issue (this can mean for instance, a recommendation for a specific group to be formed, or for an issue to be addressed by a given organization - or a group of them). The term recommendation evokes for too many, the lengthy "resolutions" adopted in traditional fora. On the other hand, the IGF, in its innovative manner, could come up with much more specific guidance, for instance if a critical mass of the relevant actors dealing with an issue get together at an IGF meeting and, in the course of a workshop, agree on a specific action (cf. the notion of roundtables when an issue is considered "ripe" or "mature"). Recommendations can be on an issue-by-issue basis and do not necessarily engage all of the IGF. In that context, I'd like to contribute a possible formulation, trying to combine the two proposals under discussion : Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF or in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their concrete recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web site. This is just a starting proposal. Feel free to edit as needed. I hope this helps. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jul 16 07:30:35 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:30:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5F0F5B.1060006@wzb.eu> Thank you, Bertrand, for this helpful contribution. It takes care of my concerns and I support it. Hope you get better soon, try a hot water bottle! jeanette Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > I've only been following the discussions on the satement only in the > last hour or so - being stuck in my bed with an awful back ache due in > part to the long economy-class flight coming back from the ICANN meeting > in Sydney (would support business class tickets indeed ..). Want to > congratulate Ginger for an amazing job and her patience. > > Just a few comments if I can help on the issue of "recommendations", > with a proposed formulation in the end. > > 1) The title of the thread (should the IGF _negotiate_ recommendations > ?) goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make" recommendations). I do > not think anybody in the IGC wants to go backwards on the Tunis document > : the capacity of IGF to produce recommendations is in the text and it > is important. What the reluctant people mean is that "negotiations" as a > way to produce recommendations is the wrong way to go. The experience of > those of us who participated this year in meetings like CSTD and ITU > WTPF shows the danger of reverting to traditional ways of > intergovernmental negotiations. > > 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction > was made between "recommendations _by_ the IGF" and "recommendations > _at_ the IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, including Dynamic > Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc gatherings after a workshop, > could take the opportunity of an IGF meeting to prepare recommendations > that they would make public at the IGF and invite other actors to join. > This is a truly multi-stakeholder and bottom-up approach. > > 3) In such an approach, some process could be envisaged for the IGF to > record such recommendations in a specific rubric, like the IGF site > already incorporates the reports of the workshops. In the simplest form, > the reports themselves can already contain such recommendations. > > Because of the above, I do not think the opposition in the IGC is > between those who want recommendations (as a condition of IGF's > credibility) and those who oppose recommendations in general. The debate > is more around how to produce something useful without getting in > traditional negotiation mode. The answer in my view is that the IGF's > main mission is to build consensus on 1) the correct understanding of an > issue and its various dimensions, 2) the existence (or not) of a > commonly agreed goal, and 3) the best procedural method to address the > issue (this can mean for instance, a recommendation for a specific group > to be formed, or for an issue to be addressed by a given organization - > or a group of them). > > The term recommendation evokes for too many, the lengthy "resolutions" > adopted in traditional fora. On the other hand, the IGF, in its > innovative manner, could come up with much more specific guidance, for > instance if a critical mass of the relevant actors dealing with an issue > get together at an IGF meeting and, in the course of a workshop, agree > on a specific action (cf. the notion of roundtables when an issue is > considered "ripe" or "mature"). Recommendations can be on an > issue-by-issue basis and do not necessarily engage all of the IGF. > > In that context, I'd like to contribute a possible formulation, trying > to combine the two proposals under discussion : > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, > but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The > IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of > workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented > in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants > should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result > of their interaction in the IGF or in the Dynamic Coalitions and to > present their concrete recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted > on the IGF web site. > > This is just a starting proposal. Feel free to edit as needed. > I hope this helps. > Best > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 16 08:27:56 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:57:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5F1CCC.7040907@itforchange.net> Dear Bertrand, Thanks a lot for the detailed email and a constructive suggestion. First of all, the title of the thread may be misleading - as i said it is mostly about the language used. The proposed statement speaks of 'non-binding statements' and at no place refers to recommendations. So it only goes far as what would be covered by your formulation, and the kind of processes that Jeannette suggested earlier, without binding ourselves down too much to some limited possibilities that can expand in the future. The operative sentence from your formulation "The IGC believes that it is important ... for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats." is quite fine with me. parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > I've only been following the discussions on the satement only in the > last hour or so - being stuck in my bed with an awful back ache due in > part to the long economy-class flight coming back from the ICANN > meeting in Sydney (would support business class tickets indeed ..). > Want to congratulate Ginger for an amazing job and her patience. > > Just a few comments if I can help on the issue of "recommendations", > with a proposed formulation in the end. > > 1) The title of the thread (should the IGF _negotiate_ recommendations > ?) goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make" recommendations). I > do not think anybody in the IGC wants to go backwards on the Tunis > document : the capacity of IGF to produce recommendations is in the > text and it is important. What the reluctant people mean is that > "negotiations" as a way to produce recommendations is the wrong way to > go. The experience of those of us who participated this year in > meetings like CSTD and ITU WTPF shows the danger of reverting to > traditional ways of intergovernmental negotiations. > > 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction > was made between "recommendations _by_ the IGF" and "recommendations > _at_ the IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, including > Dynamic Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc gatherings after a > workshop, could take the opportunity of an IGF meeting to prepare > recommendations that they would make public at the IGF and invite > other actors to join. This is a truly multi-stakeholder and bottom-up > approach. > > 3) In such an approach, some process could be envisaged for the IGF to > record such recommendations in a specific rubric, like the IGF site > already incorporates the reports of the workshops. In the simplest > form, the reports themselves can already contain such recommendations. > > Because of the above, I do not think the opposition in the IGC is > between those who want recommendations (as a condition of IGF's > credibility) and those who oppose recommendations in general. The > debate is more around how to produce something useful without getting > in traditional negotiation mode. The answer in my view is that the > IGF's main mission is to build consensus on 1) the correct > understanding of an issue and its various dimensions, 2) the existence > (or not) of a commonly agreed goal, and 3) the best procedural method > to address the issue (this can mean for instance, a recommendation for > a specific group to be formed, or for an issue to be addressed by a > given organization - or a group of them). > > The term recommendation evokes for too many, the lengthy "resolutions" > adopted in traditional fora. On the other hand, the IGF, in its > innovative manner, could come up with much more specific guidance, for > instance if a critical mass of the relevant actors dealing with an > issue get together at an IGF meeting and, in the course of a workshop, > agree on a specific action (cf. the notion of roundtables when an > issue is considered "ripe" or "mature"). Recommendations can be on an > issue-by-issue basis and do not necessarily engage all of the IGF. > > In that context, I'd like to contribute a possible formulation, trying > to combine the two proposals under discussion : > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be > forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution > drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for > the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in > general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented > formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in > concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF or > in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their concrete > recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web site. > > This is just a starting proposal. Feel free to edit as needed. > I hope this helps. > Best > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jul 16 08:36:29 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:36:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Bertrand On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > 1) The title of the thread (should the IGF negotiate > recommendations ?) goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make" > recommendations). I do not think anybody in the IGC wants to go > backwards on the Tunis document : the capacity of IGF to produce > recommendations is in the text and it is important. What the > reluctant people mean is that "negotiations" as a way to produce > recommendations is the wrong way to go. The experience of those of > us who participated this year in meetings like CSTD and ITU WTPF > shows the danger of reverting to traditional ways of > intergovernmental negotiations. Right, CSTD and WTPF really make the point. So I said negotiate for a reason. It is extremely difficult to imagine how the IGF per se could "make" recs without it becoming a negotiation, that's just how governments operate, it's in their DNA. I can't think of a single IGO- based process in which governments sit as peers with other actors and collaborate on texts without clear differentiations in "respective roles and responsibilities," i.e. nongovernmentals can weigh in but then the governments agree the text. Can you? (Even in ICANN this doesn't happen; Milton's proposed disbanding GAC and having governmentals just blend into supporting orgs, but I'd be shocked if they went for that.) Which is not to say it is absolutely impossible. In some standards and security groups there's peer-level MS cooperation. So, as I said before, it would depend very much on the modalities etc, which are unknowns, and dialogue would be needed to see whether a palatable model could be arrived at. But insofar as most of the governments that have been calling for recs are hardly friends of CS, and indeed would like to go back to WSIS procedures if anything, it's hard to be optimistic. > > 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting > distinction was made between "recommendations by the IGF" and > "recommendations at the IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, > including Dynamic Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc gatherings > after a workshop, could take the opportunity of an IGF meeting to > prepare recommendations that they would make public at the IGF and > invite other actors to join. This is a truly multi-stakeholder and > bottom-up approach. Right, and a number of us supported that. And there was Wolfgang's related proposal for "messages from the IGF." But do you think the governments calling for recs would be satisfied with that, really? I'd be rather surprised, to put it mildly. > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be > forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution > drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for > the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in > general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result- > oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to > engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in > the IGF or in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their concrete > recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web site. I would be fine with that. Or with a formulation that combines this with my suggestion of a call for open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations at the IGF level could be appropriate. Finally, just for the record, > On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> Also, it's not even accurate to say that "IGF stakeholders have >> been divided as to whether the requirement of appropriateness ever >> has been or could be met". In fact they haven't addressed their >> minds to this point at all. I don't recall anyone ever saying, >> "Well yes the IGF could make recommendations, except for this >> requirement of appropriateness". They haven't even gotten to that >> point - rather they have harped on the fact that the IGF has no >> mechanism to produce recommendations, and implying that no such >> mechanism is possible without destroying the IGF as we know it. I don't know who you talked to in Tunis or during the preparatory process Jeremy, but there were definitely governments and major nongovernmental stakeholders that absolutely did not want a commitment to do recommendations, period. "Where appropriate" provided a way out that could be presented as consistent with the mandate. If they had read the TA as you do, they would not have agreed to it in Tunis, and there might not be an IGF. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 08:38:32 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:08:32 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5F1F48.3040904@gmail.com> Thanks for continuing to add your views. Please keep the discussion going so that we can resolve these issues. I also remind you that we need to discuss Shiva's text for Q6 as well. Opinions? I think Shiva has a good idea. However, I think we should go with the short alternate text, for the sake of consensus, and ask that Shiva submit his complete statement as a personal contribution. On the "non-binding" point, I agree with Ian, that our best compromise may be to use the "may suffer" alternate. Is this acceptable to everyone, or should we drop it? Do a significant number of people oppose it? Is there any disagreement on other points? Thanks everyone. I know this has been a long process, with too many emails from me. I appreciate your patience. I do think it is important that the IGC submit this completed questionnaire, and I thank Bill for pointing it out. Best, Ginger Ian Peter wrote: > Just so my position is clear I am happy with the “may suffer” > compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text. But as others are > clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass consensus, I will not > oppose “may suffer”. The question now is whether inclusion with “may > suffer” will be accepted in a consensus statement or whether the whole > paragraph should be dropped. My reading is the paragraph should be in > the text unless a a significant number of people oppose it. > > What say ye? Do we include or not include the following paragraph > > Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new > > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow > it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned > deliberation. The IGC > contends that the IGF as a whole may suffer in the > long term if it does > not prove its value to the international community by > adopting > mechanisms for the production of non-binding > statements on Internet > > public policy issues. > > > > On 16/07/09 3:33 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > Comments below. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, > Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the > need for new > structures and processes for the IGF that would allow > it to produce more > tangible outputs through a process of reasoned > deliberation. The IGC > contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the > long term it does > not prove its value to the international community by > adopting > mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** > statements on Internet > public policy issues.] > > or change to Bill's suggestion of: > > "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make > recommendations 'where > appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to > whether the > requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could > be met. IGC > members also have been divided on these matters, with > some strongly > favoring and others just as strongly opposing the > adoption of > recommendations. Since significant disagreements on > this matter have > colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, > the IGC believes it > is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing > multistakeholder > dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever > could be appropriate > and on the possible implications of such negotiations > for the IGF's > unique character." > > > Yes I like Bill's text > > > I don't like it at all I'm afraid (sorry Bill) - and I should > also note that despite the highlighting of **NON-BINDING** > above suggesting that this wording was a change, in fact it > wasn't - it was in my original. > > I'm not going to raise a fuss about the other compromises, but > I think I have to stand my ground on this one. First, it > exaggerates the effect of the qualifier "where appropriate". > Those words cannot be used to detract from the mandate. > Raising even the possibility that it might *never* be > appropriate to make recommendations, is effectively to > abrogate paragraph 72(g) altogether. Nobody has the authority > to do that - and still less should civil society be suggesting > it! What could it possibly gain us to rule out the possibility > that civil society could ever have real input into development > of Internet public policy through a multi-stakeholder > deliberative process? > > If anything we should advocate for the *narrowest* possible > interpretation of "where appropriate"; for example, to say > that the qualifier is basically redundant - as even if there > were no controversy about making policy recommendations in > principle, there will always be particular issues on which it > would not be appropriate to do so (perhaps the emerging issue > is still evolving quickly). > > My second objection is that the suggested replacement is far > too limiting as it is not only pursuant to 72(g) on > recommendations that the IGF could produce non-binding > outputs. A document might also need to be produced by the IGF > in order to facilitate discourse between or to interface with > other bodies, or to propose ways and means to accelerate the > availability and affordability of the Internet in the > developing world, or to assess the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet governance processes, or to find > solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the > Internet... or indeed in almost any of the paragraphs of its > mandate. > > As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may > suffer", which waters it down to a similar extent as has been > proposed for the other paragraphs accepted by Ian. Beyond that > though, this is looking less and less like a civil society > statement and more like the kind of thing ISOC might put out. > Frankly as Parminder has observed, if the IGC doesn't have the > guts to push for increased civil society input into Internet > policy development processes, I'm not sure who will. The end > result is that consumer voices will continue to be > disempowered and sidelined in favour of the incumbent > government and big business interests. > > > I completely agree. and also am firmly of the opinion that this > part may not be diluted any further than the compromise "may > suffer" that Jeremy has offered. > > I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of > it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the > whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is > not really so much his view (correct me if I am wrong but that is > what I read from his email) but that of some significant others. > Now who are these hidden others who do not want to step up and > share their views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can > go without their views. The basis of IGC's positions is > deliberation based consensus, and if people do not want to submit > to this then it is entirely their choice. > > Ironical that we, through the suggested alternative text, are > asking for a discussion on the subject (with a highly prejudiced > language used in such asking) when we our selves in the IGC are > not ready to discuss it. We have put forward a good number of > arguments for more specific outcomes from the IGF and havent > received a response. 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 08:49:37 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:49:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <4A5F0195.5050109@itforchange.net> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <4A5F0195.5050109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> Sorry Parminder but it is not a good move to isolate Bill in this >> discussion. > > I am not trying to isolate anyone. I am asking for his substantive views, > and trying to do the same discussion on recs  - why they may need to be made > and what dangers if any, all the pros and the cons - that his suggested > 'text' wants the wider community to do. Somehow it is never the right time > to do such discussions - when we are preparing statements it is not the > right time, and at other times it isnt the right time either. > > >> Bill is right, we know from earlier discussions on the matter of >> recommendations that lots of (otherwise) actively participating members of >> this caucus are skeptical or opposed to IGF recommendations. Correct, there are others besides me. > > Who are these. McTim used be one, I still am. Please speak for yourself only. but he agrees to the present compromise > text. I believe it "will suffer", but can live with "may suffer", as it is not a significant difference to me. >IF you can is suggest other names I can try to engage with them. It's not your job to do this. The fact is there is opposition to your views, accept that and let us move fwd please. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 09:12:47 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:42:47 -0430 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5F274F.3090700@gmail.com> Bertrand, thanks for proposing this alternate. I works for me. Please opine, everybody! Best, gp Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > I've only been following the discussions on the satement only in the > last hour or so - being stuck in my bed with an awful back ache due in > part to the long economy-class flight coming back from the ICANN > meeting in Sydney (would support business class tickets indeed ..). > Want to congratulate Ginger for an amazing job and her patience. > > Just a few comments if I can help on the issue of "recommendations", > with a proposed formulation in the end. > > 1) The title of the thread (should the IGF _negotiate_ recommendations > ?) goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make" recommendations). I > do not think anybody in the IGC wants to go backwards on the Tunis > document : the capacity of IGF to produce recommendations is in the > text and it is important. What the reluctant people mean is that > "negotiations" as a way to produce recommendations is the wrong way to > go. The experience of those of us who participated this year in > meetings like CSTD and ITU WTPF shows the danger of reverting to > traditional ways of intergovernmental negotiations. > > 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction > was made between "recommendations _by_ the IGF" and "recommendations > _at_ the IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, including > Dynamic Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc gatherings after a > workshop, could take the opportunity of an IGF meeting to prepare > recommendations that they would make public at the IGF and invite > other actors to join. This is a truly multi-stakeholder and bottom-up > approach. > > 3) In such an approach, some process could be envisaged for the IGF to > record such recommendations in a specific rubric, like the IGF site > already incorporates the reports of the workshops. In the simplest > form, the reports themselves can already contain such recommendations. > > Because of the above, I do not think the opposition in the IGC is > between those who want recommendations (as a condition of IGF's > credibility) and those who oppose recommendations in general. The > debate is more around how to produce something useful without getting > in traditional negotiation mode. The answer in my view is that the > IGF's main mission is to build consensus on 1) the correct > understanding of an issue and its various dimensions, 2) the existence > (or not) of a commonly agreed goal, and 3) the best procedural method > to address the issue (this can mean for instance, a recommendation for > a specific group to be formed, or for an issue to be addressed by a > given organization - or a group of them). > > The term recommendation evokes for too many, the lengthy "resolutions" > adopted in traditional fora. On the other hand, the IGF, in its > innovative manner, could come up with much more specific guidance, for > instance if a critical mass of the relevant actors dealing with an > issue get together at an IGF meeting and, in the course of a workshop, > agree on a specific action (cf. the notion of roundtables when an > issue is considered "ripe" or "mature"). Recommendations can be on an > issue-by-issue basis and do not necessarily engage all of the IGF. > > In that context, I'd like to contribute a possible formulation, trying > to combine the two proposals under discussion : > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be > forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution > drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for > the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in > general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented > formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in > concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF or > in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their concrete > recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web site. > > This is just a starting proposal. Feel free to edit as needed. > I hope this helps. > Best > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 09:08:28 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:38:28 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 (rights) In-Reply-To: References: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5F264C.3060406@gmail.com> Bill and all, Q2 the issue of rights, particularly the section: **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** Is it acceptable to say the following, and also apply Bill's suggestion to move this section to Q7? The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. (this continues as below, and would be moved to Q7 with the above) The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. gp William Drake wrote: > > > I'm sorry but this means nothing. We can't reinterpret the whole > history of negotiations and tell governments you think you agreed to x > but actually you agreed to y because Chengetai or whomever put a link > to the whole doc rather than correct section, which isn't possible in > this case. >> >> On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 >> articles of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I >> agree with Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs? > > By recognizing that these are references to the UDHR etc at the front > of a text about the info society generally, not a statement that > multilingual domain names, net stability, transparency or anything > else are recognized by the parties as rights. Which again is not to > say that one couldn't view and advocate those points from a rights > perspective. The ONLY "right" that is specifically mentioned/agreed in > the WSIS principles on IG is in 49, which says states have the > (apparently exclusive) right to make public policy. >> >> 4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options-- >> (Q6 also) >> A) that we use this shortened version: >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns > > Agree > >> in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and >> gender. > > FWIW the caucus has previously made statements about the need for the > IGF to focus on IG per se rather than ICT4D and questioning unclear > links to environmental policy. > > Best, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jul 16 09:14:08 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:14:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <4A5F0195.5050109@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ECA9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Sorry for disappearing for a while, I must do so again in a minute. But on recommendations, some may recall a workshop I chaired at last IGF voting (a light-hearted, informal, 'sense of the room' show of hands) to recommend the US end the JPA. There was more laughter than angst at the time; though I heard afterward some were seriously upset with me that the show of hands could be misinterpreted as an official recommendation 'of the IGF' which of course it was not. I realize my deliberate breach of preceived protocol was provocative; which was my intent. To make the point that nothing in the WSIS texts prevents dynamic coalitions or workshops 'at' the IGF from either making or negotiating recommendations - now. So my worry is if we get the wording wrong in a statement we may inadvertently give up that capacity for...well I don't know, but we may get nothing. Recall Bertrand's points: 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction was made between "recommendations by the IGF" and "recommendations at the IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, including Dynamic Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc gatherings after a workshop, could take the opportunity of an IGF meeting to prepare recommendations that they would make public at the IGF and invite other actors to join. This is a truly multi-stakeholder and bottom-up approach. 3) In such an approach, some process could be envisaged for the IGF to record such recommendations in a specific rubric, like the IGF site already incorporates the reports of the workshops. In the simplest form, the reports themselves can already contain such recommendations Lee again: I know we have no time, but I agree with Bertrand that a process for recording and disseminating recommendations is more of an issue than whether or not recommendations may somehow emanate from the IGF process - or be made, or negotiated; since we know they can, and have already; and might again in Egypt. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> Sorry Parminder but it is not a good move to isolate Bill in this >> discussion. > > I am not trying to isolate anyone. I am asking for his substantive views, > and trying to do the same discussion on recs - why they may need to be made > and what dangers if any, all the pros and the cons - that his suggested > 'text' wants the wider community to do. Somehow it is never the right time > to do such discussions - when we are preparing statements it is not the > right time, and at other times it isnt the right time either. > > >> Bill is right, we know from earlier discussions on the matter of >> recommendations that lots of (otherwise) actively participating members of >> this caucus are skeptical or opposed to IGF recommendations. Correct, there are others besides me. > > Who are these. McTim used be one, I still am. Please speak for yourself only. but he agrees to the present compromise > text. I believe it "will suffer", but can live with "may suffer", as it is not a significant difference to me. >IF you can is suggest other names I can try to engage with them. It's not your job to do this. The fact is there is opposition to your views, accept that and let us move fwd please. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 16 09:16:51 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:46:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> <398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A5F2843.7000600@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi Bertrand > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> >> 1) The title of the thread (should the IGF _negotiate_ >> recommendations ?) goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make" >> recommendations). I do not think anybody in the IGC wants to go >> backwards on the Tunis document : the capacity of IGF to produce >> recommendations is in the text and it is important. What the >> reluctant people mean is that "negotiations" as a way to produce >> recommendations is the wrong way to go. The experience of those of us >> who participated this year in meetings like CSTD and ITU WTPF shows >> the danger of reverting to traditional ways of intergovernmental >> negotiations. > > Right, CSTD and WTPF really make the point. So I said negotiate for a > reason. It is extremely difficult to imagine how the IGF per se could > "make" recs without it becoming a negotiation, that's just how > governments operate, it's in their DNA. I can't think of a single > IGO-based process in which governments sit as peers with other actors > and collaborate on texts without clear differentiations in "respective > roles and responsibilities," i.e. nongovernmentals can weigh in but > then the governments agree the text. If we in this early evolving phase of this (probably) promising novel multi-stakeholder institutions - IGF - get into self-fulfilling prophecy of condemnation to governmental DNA, we are done. > Can you? (Even in ICANN this doesn't happen; Milton's proposed > disbanding GAC and having governmentals just blend into supporting > orgs, but I'd be shocked if they went for that.) > > Which is not to say it is absolutely impossible. In some standards > and security groups there's peer-level MS cooperation. So, as I said > before, it would depend very much on the modalities etc, which are > unknowns, and dialogue would be needed to see whether a palatable > model could be arrived at. In that case we share a common objective. What do you think we can do to best push for such a new model? I have been trying what I think is the best way to push for it, but we dont seem to agree much at all. What is your strategy? I am very much for a IGF session on this dialogue - which is very different from stating it in the IGC response to IGF's review. This response should contain what would be the likely position we will take at such a dialogue. It is in this sense i asked for your views that you contribute to the proposed dialogue. > But insofar as most of the governments that have been calling for > recs are hardly friends of CS, and indeed would like to go back to > WSIS procedures if anything, it's hard to be optimistic. Thats the problem. You are not optimistic. Others are, because this may be our only bet. Think of the alternatives. > >> >> 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction >> was made between "recommendations _by_ the IGF" and "recommendations >> _at_ the IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, including >> Dynamic Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc gatherings after a >> workshop, could take the opportunity of an IGF meeting to prepare >> recommendations that they would make public at the IGF and invite >> other actors to join. This is a truly multi-stakeholder and bottom-up >> approach. > > Right, and a number of us supported that. And there was > Wolfgang's related proposal for "messages from the IGF." But do you > think the governments calling for recs would be satisfied with that, > really? I'd be rather surprised, to put it mildly. We are not trying to satisfy the governments you talk about - we are trying to make tentative movements towards a model that suits us best, and is possible. >> >> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where >> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be >> forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution >> drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for >> the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in >> general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and >> result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged >> to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction >> in the IGF or in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their concrete >> recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web site. > > I would be fine with that. Or with a formulation that combines this > with my suggestion of a call for open, inclusive, and probing > multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations at the > IGF level could be appropriate. that suggestion should go in our inputs for the next IGF agenda. In the review document more than anything else it throws serious doubts on some text on IGF mandate which really is not our purpose. parminder > > Finally, just for the record, > >> On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> Also, it's not even accurate to say that "IGF stakeholders have been >>> divided as to whether the requirement of appropriateness ever has >>> been or could be met". In fact they haven't addressed their minds >>> to this point at all. I don't recall anyone ever saying, "Well yes >>> the IGF could make recommendations, except for this requirement of >>> appropriateness". They haven't even gotten to that point - rather >>> they have harped on the fact that the IGF has no mechanism to >>> produce recommendations, and implying that no such mechanism is >>> possible without destroying the IGF as we know it. > > I don't know who you talked to in Tunis or during the preparatory > process Jeremy, but there were definitely governments and major > nongovernmental stakeholders that absolutely did not want a commitment > to do recommendations, period. "Where appropriate" provided a way out > that could be presented as consistent with the mandate. If they had > read the TA as you do, they would not have agreed to it in Tunis, > and there might not be an IGF. > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lohento at oridev.org Thu Jul 16 09:11:45 2009 From: lohento at oridev.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:11:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5F2711.5080605@oridev.org> Hi all Thanks Ginger for your efforts. I'm generally happy with the spirit of text (as of 15 July, even though I know there are still some issues to be solved). Some quick contributions. - *Regarding paragraph 3*, the text, as of 15 July reads 3rd paragraph of that paragraph ): "The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups." I suggest that we say rather "If the question is posed differently ......it can be seen that MANY participants...respective stakeholder groups.. "Many" instead of "the participants" because we cannot be sure right here as IGC of what people have gained or not. - Paragraph - *Regarding paragraph 6*, I support this suggestion from Bertrand. > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be > forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution > drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for > the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in > general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented > formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in > concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF or > in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their concrete > recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web site. But Iwould like to suggest that we add to it the following sentence : '"These recommendations should be formated in an appropriate way, in order to be them clearly visible". (or something similar) Just to explain my stand : if recommendations are not clearly visible in IGF output documents, it will not be noticed that we have recommendations. Because I'm sure that in fact some workshops did already suggest recommendations. So I suggest that, for example, at the end of each workshop report, we have a clear section dubbed "Recommendations" (if recommendations is appropriate for that workhop/session), where all suggestions would be indicated. A better idea could be to have an IGF meeting output document called for example "Recommendations from IGF participants", where key recommendations (from workshops, mains sessions, etc.) would be listed with shorts introductions. The specification of "from IGF participants" will show clearly that we are not talking of adopted/negociated recommandations. - *Funding in para 6 - *Ginger, I support your option B of Shiva's suggestion (short version). I mean this one "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation." - *new addition to paragraph 6* Reading the whole statement, I hardly see a reference to multilingualism which is key for inclusive participation and which needs to be improved in the current process. So, I would like to suggest that we insert in paragraph 6, the following sentence (or edited as appropriate) "Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF proceedures, notably for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders." Regards Ken L -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 09:32:39 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:32:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <4A5F1CCC.7040907@itforchange.net> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> <4A5F1CCC.7040907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <954259bd0907160632u2bcc4c9dkbd6f1a548dc32824@mail.gmail.com> Dear Parminder, In a certain way, it paradoxically may be more powerful for your position to simply restate what is already in the Tunis Agenda (ie the explicit mention of recommendations) rather than introducing a new formulation regarding "non-binding statements" which has the same problem (how do you prepare an IGF non-binding statement) and is only weaker. The "non-binding" precision may in addition be considered superfluous, as the IGF itself is non-binding. The IGF is an ongoing process (provided of course it is continued :-) and the goal is to invent new modes of expression that all actors progressively feel comfortable with. Best Bertrand On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Parminder wrote: > Dear Bertrand, > > Thanks a lot for the detailed email and a constructive suggestion. > > First of all, the title of the thread may be misleading - as i said it is > mostly about the language used. The proposed statement speaks of > 'non-binding statements' and at no place refers to recommendations. So it > only goes far as what would be covered by your formulation, and the kind of > processes that Jeannette suggested earlier, without binding ourselves down > too much to some limited possibilities that can expand in the future. > > The operative sentence from your formulation > > "The IGC believes that it is important ... for the outcomes of workshops > and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more > tangible, concise and result-oriented formats." > > is quite fine with me. > > parminder > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Dear all, > > I've only been following the discussions on the satement only in the last > hour or so - being stuck in my bed with an awful back ache due in part to > the long economy-class flight coming back from the ICANN meeting in Sydney > (would support business class tickets indeed ..). Want to congratulate > Ginger for an amazing job and her patience. > > Just a few comments if I can help on the issue of "recommendations", with a > proposed formulation in the end. > > 1) The title of the thread (should the IGF *negotiate* recommendations ?) > goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make" recommendations). I do not > think anybody in the IGC wants to go backwards on the Tunis document : the > capacity of IGF to produce recommendations is in the text and it is > important. What the reluctant people mean is that "negotiations" as a way to > produce recommendations is the wrong way to go. The experience of those of > us who participated this year in meetings like CSTD and ITU WTPF shows the > danger of reverting to traditional ways of intergovernmental negotiations. > > 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction was > made between "recommendations *by* the IGF" and "recommendations *at* the > IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, including Dynamic Coalitions > for instance but also ad hoc gatherings after a workshop, could take the > opportunity of an IGF meeting to prepare recommendations that they would > make public at the IGF and invite other actors to join. This is a truly > multi-stakeholder and bottom-up approach. > > 3) In such an approach, some process could be envisaged for the IGF to > record such recommendations in a specific rubric, like the IGF site already > incorporates the reports of the workshops. In the simplest form, the reports > themselves can already contain such recommendations. > > Because of the above, I do not think the opposition in the IGC is between > those who want recommendations (as a condition of IGF's credibility) and > those who oppose recommendations in general. The debate is more around how > to produce something useful without getting in traditional negotiation > mode. The answer in my view is that the IGF's main mission is to build > consensus on 1) the correct understanding of an issue and its various > dimensions, 2) the existence (or not) of a commonly agreed goal, and 3) the > best procedural method to address the issue (this can mean for instance, a > recommendation for a specific group to be formed, or for an issue to be > addressed by a given organization - or a group of them). > > The term recommendation evokes for too many, the lengthy "resolutions" > adopted in traditional fora. On the other hand, the IGF, in its innovative > manner, could come up with much more specific guidance, for instance if a > critical mass of the relevant actors dealing with an issue get together at > an IGF meeting and, in the course of a workshop, agree on a specific action > (cf. the notion of roundtables when an issue is considered "ripe" or > "mature"). Recommendations can be on an issue-by-issue basis and do not > necessarily engage all of the IGF. > > In that context, I'd like to contribute a possible formulation, trying to > combine the two proposals under discussion : > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but > this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC > believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops > and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more > tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also > be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their > interaction in the IGF or in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their > concrete recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web > site. > > This is just a starting proposal. Feel free to edit as needed. > I hope this helps. > Best > Bertrand > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 09:40:49 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:40:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <4A5F2711.5080605@oridev.org> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> <4A5F2711.5080605@oridev.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0907160640r6cf92dacnfd7ae15bac7fd192@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ken, Your interpretation below is exactly what I had in mind. A way to integrate this more clearly could be to expand slightly the last sentence of my proposed wording to read : IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF or in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their concrete recommendations at the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. (new text in red). HTH (hope this helps) Best Bertrand On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ken Lohento wrote: > > - *Regarding paragraph 6*, I support this suggestion from Bertrand. > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but > this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC > believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops > and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more > tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also > be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their > interaction in the IGF or in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their > concrete recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web > site. > > > But Iwould like to suggest that we add to it the following sentence : > '"These recommendations should be formated in an appropriate way, in order > to be them clearly visible". (or something similar) > > Just to explain my stand : if recommendations are not clearly visible in > IGF output documents, it will not be noticed that we have recommendations. > Because I'm sure that in fact some workshops did already suggest > recommendations. So I suggest that, for example, at the end of each workshop > report, we have a clear section dubbed "Recommendations" (if recommendations > is appropriate for that workhop/session), where all suggestions would be > indicated. A better idea could be to have an IGF meeting output document > called for example "Recommendations from IGF participants", where key > recommendations (from workshops, mains sessions, etc.) would be listed with > shorts introductions. The specification of "from IGF participants" will show > clearly that we are not talking of adopted/negociated recommandations. > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 10:02:52 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:02:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A5EF0F9.2030708@itforchange.net> <4A5EFBCB.4070005@wzb.eu> <954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com> <398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <954259bd0907160702xff8d427laad8b4f6d02cc1ce@mail.gmail.com> Dear Bill, thanks for the comments. You wrote : > > Right, and a number of us supported that (ie : the notion of > recommendations "at" the IGF). And there was > Wolfgang's related proposal for "messages from the IGF." But do you think > the governments calling for recs would be satisfied with that, really? I'd > be rather surprised, to put it mildly. > My take is that among governments calling for more formal outcomes, many (at least the most conscious) are concerned that reverting to traditional drafting would kill the nature of the IGF and its capacity to address issues in an informal and peer way (the essential benefit of the exercise). It is the same concern as many on this list. As for those who call for pure intergovernmental negotiations, they fundamentally object to the multi-stakeholder approach and talk about other spaces : so, they are not really part of this debate (and should read again what they signed in 2003 and 2005, by the way). The idea of recommendations "at" the IGF is therefore a possible middle ground forward and the expression actually received significant support from governments I spoke with. On a side note, the precedent of the WGIG is interesting : a significant part of the multi-stakeholder recommendations (including the now famous definition of Internet Governance and the proposal of a Forum) was integrated in the document finally negociated by governments in the Tunis meeting. So, a mechanism could emerge whereby all actors, on a peer level, discuss an issue and agree on some formulation that could afterwards be given a "higher" status if it is integrated in traditional drafting exercises in other organizations. Just a thought. But let's keep it for another discussion :-) Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jul 16 15:41:43 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:41:43 +1000 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: <4A5F274F.3090700@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Bertrand. I think we should run with this new proposed text as it seems to have general support. On 16/07/09 11:12 PM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Bertrand, thanks for proposing this alternate. I works for me. Please > opine, everybody! > > Best, gp > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I've only been following the discussions on the satement only in the >> last hour or so - being stuck in my bed with an awful back ache due in >> part to the long economy-class flight coming back from the ICANN >> meeting in Sydney (would support business class tickets indeed ..). >> Want to congratulate Ginger for an amazing job and her patience. >> >> Just a few comments if I can help on the issue of "recommendations", >> with a proposed formulation in the end. >> >> 1) The title of the thread (should the IGF _negotiate_ recommendations >> ?) goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make" recommendations). I >> do not think anybody in the IGC wants to go backwards on the Tunis >> document : the capacity of IGF to produce recommendations is in the >> text and it is important. What the reluctant people mean is that >> "negotiations" as a way to produce recommendations is the wrong way to >> go. The experience of those of us who participated this year in >> meetings like CSTD and ITU WTPF shows the danger of reverting to >> traditional ways of intergovernmental negotiations. >> >> 2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction >> was made between "recommendations _by_ the IGF" and "recommendations >> _at_ the IGF". This would mean that groups of actors, including >> Dynamic Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc gatherings after a >> workshop, could take the opportunity of an IGF meeting to prepare >> recommendations that they would make public at the IGF and invite >> other actors to join. This is a truly multi-stakeholder and bottom-up >> approach. >> >> 3) In such an approach, some process could be envisaged for the IGF to >> record such recommendations in a specific rubric, like the IGF site >> already incorporates the reports of the workshops. In the simplest >> form, the reports themselves can already contain such recommendations. >> >> Because of the above, I do not think the opposition in the IGC is >> between those who want recommendations (as a condition of IGF's >> credibility) and those who oppose recommendations in general. The >> debate is more around how to produce something useful without getting >> in traditional negotiation mode. The answer in my view is that the >> IGF's main mission is to build consensus on 1) the correct >> understanding of an issue and its various dimensions, 2) the existence >> (or not) of a commonly agreed goal, and 3) the best procedural method >> to address the issue (this can mean for instance, a recommendation for >> a specific group to be formed, or for an issue to be addressed by a >> given organization - or a group of them). >> >> The term recommendation evokes for too many, the lengthy "resolutions" >> adopted in traditional fora. On the other hand, the IGF, in its >> innovative manner, could come up with much more specific guidance, for >> instance if a critical mass of the relevant actors dealing with an >> issue get together at an IGF meeting and, in the course of a workshop, >> agree on a specific action (cf. the notion of roundtables when an >> issue is considered "ripe" or "mature"). Recommendations can be on an >> issue-by-issue basis and do not necessarily engage all of the IGF. >> >> In that context, I'd like to contribute a possible formulation, trying >> to combine the two proposals under discussion : >> >> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where >> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be >> forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution >> drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for >> the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in >> general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented >> formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in >> concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF or >> in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their concrete >> recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web site. >> >> This is just a starting proposal. Feel free to edit as needed. >> I hope this helps. >> Best >> Bertrand >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >> the Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 16:25:19 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:55:19 -0430 Subject: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF Secretarial Message-ID: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> Hello everyone, I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest suggestions for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened form of Shiva's text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now found in Q6, and Ken's recent changes. This is basically all of the latest compromises. I hope I have not missed anything. Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July 17th. I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some waking hours. I ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is too late to bring up new issues. If you have new ideas, please make note and reserve them for an upcoming statement. This will be our contribution to the questionnaire. Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am optimistic that we will be ready to start a call for consensus tomorrow at 8:00 GMT. Best, Ginger 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? ****Membership of the MAG** •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with special needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. ****Role and Structure of the MAG** With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. ****Special Advisors and Chair** The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. 7. Do you have any other comments? The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jul 16 16:42:05 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:42:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF In-Reply-To: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> References: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ECAD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Nice job everyone! Lee ________________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:25 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter; Parminder; William Drake Subject: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF Secretarial Hello everyone, I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest suggestions for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened form of Shiva's text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now found in Q6, and Ken's recent changes. This is basically all of the latest compromises. I hope I have not missed anything. Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July 17th. I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some waking hours. I ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is too late to bring up new issues. If you have new ideas, please make note and reserve them for an upcoming statement. This will be our contribution to the questionnaire. Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am optimistic that we will be ready to start a call for consensus tomorrow at 8:00 GMT. Best, Ginger 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? ****Membership of the MAG** •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with special needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. ****Role and Structure of the MAG** With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. ****Special Advisors and Chair** The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. 7. Do you have any other comments? The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jul 16 17:05:23 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:05:23 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF Secretarial In-Reply-To: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> Message-ID: Excellent! Thanks Ginger in particular and everyone else for their contributions here. Ready to go from my point of view. On 17/07/09 6:25 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest suggestions > for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened form of Shiva's > text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now found in Q6, and > Ken's recent changes. This is basically all of the latest compromises. I > hope I have not missed anything. > > Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July > 17th. I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some waking > hours. I ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is too late to > bring up new issues. If you have new ideas, please make note and reserve > them for an upcoming statement. This will be our contribution to the > questionnaire. > > Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am > optimistic that we will be ready to start a call for consensus tomorrow > at 8:00 GMT. > > Best, Ginger > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going > process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF > meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is > important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and > seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue > helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's > success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real > policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of > success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, > but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural > evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on > 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to Œfacilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and > 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other > institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders > in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g > of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making > recommendations'. > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking > with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of view, if > not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is > widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder > dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the > global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying > this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, > particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have > not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As > already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking > shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish > formal relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and > ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into > account multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles > throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF > to, ³promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has > not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of > its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated > programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss > government¹s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should > be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was > during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the > IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels > that include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF > on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any > particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the > IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and > perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as > during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to > experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and > many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance > process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > ****Membership of the MAG** > > €Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > experiment in global governance. > € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups > with special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > ****Role and Structure of the MAG** > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will > be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out > this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG > that is little more than a program committee will not effectively > advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS > mandate. > > € It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by > the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph > 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the > discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up > for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is > also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. > While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of > the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with > the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries > with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct > of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations. > > > ****Special Advisors and Chair** > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind > for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > should be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to > be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to > improve effectiveness. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > processes more participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding > from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end > we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN > organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, > we submit: > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of > rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, > remote participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the > Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special > needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including > migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We > shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with > disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and > often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer > and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and > those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the > Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and > social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s > inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be > appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a > single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other > Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which > global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere > rather than the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should > more clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into > consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and > sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and > lodging that is competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the > Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, > but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The > IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of > workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented > in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants > should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result > of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their > posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG > activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for > example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. > > Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for > key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in > order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the > Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give > rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, > allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central > obligation of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare > consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 22:17:56 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:47:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF In-Reply-To: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> References: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello All, I have some comments, but my comments are not intended to invite further debates at this final stage. I was focusing on Q3 and 6 and couldn't spend time on other questions (nor on Q3 and 6 during the last three days), so on this 'final' statement, these inputs are more of an expression than a suggestion for further debate which may not be possible. The caucus has incorporated parts of the ideas expressed as response to Q3 and 6 in the final statement which does reflect in various parts some of the suggestions, but I feel that the final statement does not quite convey the points as expressed. Yes, as suggested by Ginger in one of her messages on Q3, I could submit the ideas expressed as my part of the response to Q6 (and Q3 which is heavily condensed into an independent statement or append what is left out to a statement that I submitted months ago http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=7and request the Secretariat to replace the earlier statement with this new elaborate statement, but I belive that the points raised are of common concern rather than an individual's opinion. Some comments on the IGC Statement below: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest suggestions > for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened form of Shiva's > text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now found in Q6, and Ken's > recent changes. This is basically all of the latest compromises. I hope I > have not missed anything. > > Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July 17th. > I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some waking hours. I > ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is too late to bring up new > issues. If you have new ideas, please make note and reserve them for an > upcoming statement. This will be our contribution to the questionnaire. > > Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am optimistic > that we will be ready to start a call for consensus tomorrow at 8:00 GMT. > > Best, Ginger > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the > Tunis Agenda? > > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set > out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained > in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and > specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way > to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. Yes. > However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process > of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. The "However.... IGF meeting" doesn't quite follow the first sentence, and it doesn't convey anything clearly. > To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that > the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy > dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of > real policy-making in these areas. Yes > Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence > these real policy-making processes. Yes If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF > is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, No, IGF still hasn't managed to begin influencing real policy processes. but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural > evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on > 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' Yes > and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy > making. > > In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate discourse > between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public > policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with > appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on > matters under their purview' (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in > proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of > the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying > emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking > with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not > accept it. Yes > This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that > IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond > exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, > especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and > expertise systems in IG arena. The ideas expressed and implied in 'unconditionality' are relevant in the 'Capacity Building' phase to ensure a FAIR diversity of participants and their independence. Is the "Capacity Building program" known to wider potential participants? Or does it continue to attract those with ties or at least exposure to the most influential stakeholder groups? > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder > dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the > global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this > innovation in a relatively formal way). Regional Initiatives yes, but I have some concerns about national initiatives, which in some countries could be 'initiatives' on which national governments play a larger role than the rest of the stakeholders, so input from the country would largely be position desired by the national governments rather than be a multi stakholder position of the country. > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development > of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The > participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the > controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. Yes The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is > still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may > cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in > areas such as rights, Why particularly rights? > inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some > national and regional processes are already taking shape. Regional and National processes need to be so designed as to contribute to the Global IGF rather than fragment the IGF. If Regional or National initiatives are to be expanded, IGF needs to think of IGF Regional Secretariats and National Presence to ensure that there is stakholder balance. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal > relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a > stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account > multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate.The Internet > Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this > arena,and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting > issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those > principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To > that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good > practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the > principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such > an effort. > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it > impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted > as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that > there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during > WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Yes. > Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now > workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil > society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. Yes, to some extent. > > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question > is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. > > > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder > process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance > issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and > perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as > during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to > experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many > are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process > and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. While verbose responses to other questions have been allowed, the following passages have not been incorporated in response to Q3 in order to keep this brief? ( part of it has been taken as under repsonse to Q7 though it doesn't fully convey the suggestion ) *As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend. This is a "design" aspect of the IGF which may be largely preserved. At the same time it is observed that due to this status of the IGF, the policy making process of National Governments and Regional Governments have not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings together participants with different expertise from various stakeholder groups from various geographic regions around the world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues but these valuable and meaningful deliberations have not been systematically channeled to contribute to the actual policy making process. IGF could devise a system by which Session/Topic Reports could be generated to summarize the positions of stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during the IGF. Though this may not constitute to be a "recommendation" or a "formal statement" from the IGF, such Session/Topic Reports could be released under different topic headings and could become Reference Documents to contribute to the National / Regional policy making process. Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources from the IGF Reference Papers on the relevant issues/topics while framing proposals for a new policy / change of an existing policy related to Internet. The proposed Reference documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom of Expression to outline the overall IGF position with sub-sections on stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics such as a topic on Cloud Computing or Social Networking. Such Documents would enable the National / Regional Policy making process to comprehensively and readily understand the "mood" of the IGF on a topic on which a certain legislation/ directive/ guideline is being considered. At present decisions are taken by governments and by business corporations largely in isolation of the IGF deliberations, without taking into consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor consider the solutions proposed by the IGF. The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat considers this as an action item and introduce a mechanism to thoroughly record as audio-visuals collated with text transcripts and presentations to be archives as source records of each panel discussion, workshop, roundtable, open forum, or in any other format, in every room. In addition the Secretariat may also assign neutral staff with synthesing skills to prepare consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. The IGF Secretariat may also proactively reach out to Governments to urge them to adopt it as a convention to call for IGF Position papers and related documents to be used as inputs in their policy making process. * * * > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, > including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), > Secretariat and open consultations? > > > ****Membership of the MAG** > > •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society > representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in > global governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with > special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. It is ok to focus so much on gender and geographic diverstity, but substantive diversity and diversity of expertise is sometimes missed in the process. > > > ****Role and Structure of the MAG** > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to > revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be > useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this > function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially > important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to > enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more > than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet > governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. > > • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). > These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops > connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal > tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts > of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for > the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary > General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis > Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the > desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for > this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also > expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. Regional MAGs or Regional MAG Working Groups? To ensure that the regional and national events are also TRULY mutli-stakholder? > > > > ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN > process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its > mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect > and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely > under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the > IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs > to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of > those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with > perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the > discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations. > > > ****Special Advisors and Chair** > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be > kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. Yes. > > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder > policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of > the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being > co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Yes Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to > bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > processes more participative and democratic. Yes, this is what was detailed in the response omitted under Q3 copied earlier as comment in this text. > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from > publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively and impartially in the global public interest. Yes. > To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no > other UN organization in the IGF's management. Yes, I fully agreee. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we > submit: > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely > heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote > participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information > Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of > marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, > internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We > shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with > disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural > people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often > landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open > access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking > to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to > specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as > practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary > resource in support of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception > but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology > support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental > conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet > Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. > Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement > between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global > face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than > the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources > and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and > city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as > well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be > announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, > and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is > competitive and convenient. Yes, a very good point. > > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a > regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote > Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but > this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC > believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops > and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more > tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also > be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their > interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on > the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide > substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further > enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of > participation The call for funding could be more effective if the following text wasn't so much abbreviated. I still do not see any reason why it was excluded (with the exception of one or two points: *The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for financial reasons, the present participants from Government are not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well-received for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments, International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)* and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of participation.* [ There has been a long discussion on this point at the list, for which I am thankful. In my clarifications I have said: The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook unconstrained by the present situation. Another million or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the IGF body. 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a way to find funds to answer thiso call. 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF in eternal poverty, and Does the fact that UN has provided the initial funding limit the IGF Secrearaiat from acting as a Calalyst for a fund that is open for contributions from Business, International Organizations, NGOs, Charitable Trusts and individuals? ....the scale of funds sought from Member States on this area is not a signifcant sum, and it may not be a buredn for Member States to commit and grant the required funds, but if for some reason the process of debate at the UN gets delayed on this action item, or if the decision is not full, the need may at least be temporarily be unfulfilled. So the Caucus may find a way to word this point in such a way that the idea of mutli-stakeholder contribution to this mutlistakholder fund is mooted. It does not sound right that IGF as a multi-stakholder forum is confined to depend only on Governmental contributions. The reasons for exluding this suggestion is unconvincing. What is allowed as part of this final statement is not self-explanatory.] > including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of > civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the > environment and gender. > > Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key > documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to > increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the > Internet Governance agenda. > Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, What is implied here? > allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central > obligation of the IGF. same question as above. What makes the IGC thinks that it is a central obligation of the IGF to consider that the "rights-based" approach is the best possible course of action to approach Internet Governance issues? > > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, > while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and > applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates > regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. This part is confused. > > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern > the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. Sorry, I disagree. > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce > a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and > collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also > assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports > on issues/sessions. Yes, but doesn't fully convey the point. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jul 16 22:49:00 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:49:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B037066-5BA2-4410-BD42-CC85355FEBE0@ciroap.org> On 17/07/2009, at 3:41 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks Bertrand. I think we should run with this new proposed text > as it > seems to have general support. I am happy enough with Bertrand's text... and with the balance of the document, so I will be voting yes when a call for consensus is made. Congratulations Ginger, Ian and all. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 17 00:49:09 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:19:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 (rights) In-Reply-To: <4A5F264C.3060406@gmail.com> References: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> <4A5F264C.3060406@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A6002C5.10608@itforchange.net> All I have not been able to figure out at all what is lost by keeping the rights part here in Q 2 , and also linking it to WSIS principles. I have already pointed out to the fact there is no precise definition of the term, and it is open to a range of interpretations, as seen by the secretariat linking the DoP to this question, as also the discussions in MAG. Why would we not choose the interpretation that most suits us today, which also seems to have some official support. I have argued earlier that if we give up the linkage of rights to WSIS principles we will be compromising the gains we have made about inclusion of rights in WSIS agenda, whereby rights are to be discussed in Sharm in the session on WSIS principles. Also if the linkage can be built, we can use the IGF mandate, para 72 (i) to assess embodiment of 'WSIS principles' in IG processes to included assessment of 'rights' in IG processes. The thing we principally want to do today. I would want to text to stay as it is, and also where it is, ie Q 2. To accommodate Bill's concern I am ready to change the sentence - 'A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights' to ' a reading of Geneva declaration of principles shows repeated mention of rights' ... parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > Bill and all, > > Q2 the issue of rights, particularly the section: > **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. > Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a > significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of > voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** > > Is it acceptable to say the following, and also apply Bill's > suggestion to move this section to Q7? > > The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the > Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to > give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting > agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a > central obligation of the IGF. > > (this continues as below, and would be moved to Q7 with the above) > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to > emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in > Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals > to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in > keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and > relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that > should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > gp > > > William Drake wrote: >> >> >> I'm sorry but this means nothing. We can't reinterpret the whole >> history of negotiations and tell governments you think you agreed to >> x but actually you agreed to y because Chengetai or whomever put a >> link to the whole doc rather than correct section, which isn't >> possible in this case. >>> >>> On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 >>> articles of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I >>> agree with Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs? >> >> By recognizing that these are references to the UDHR etc at the front >> of a text about the info society generally, not a statement that >> multilingual domain names, net stability, transparency or anything >> else are recognized by the parties as rights. Which again is not to >> say that one couldn't view and advocate those points from a rights >> perspective. The ONLY "right" that is specifically mentioned/agreed >> in the WSIS principles on IG is in 49, which says states have the >> (apparently exclusive) right to make public policy. >>> >>> 4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options-- >>> (Q6 also) >>> A) that we use this shortened version: >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster >>> greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage >>> of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns >> >> Agree >> >>> in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and >>> gender. >> >> FWIW the caucus has previously made statements about the need for the >> IGF to focus on IG per se rather than ICT4D and questioning unclear >> links to environmental policy. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Jul 17 01:05:34 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:05:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF Secretarial In-Reply-To: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> References: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6459936D-328E-4A51-B7B8-8678361C2ACE@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Just noticed a couple little things. On Jul 16, 2009, at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion > of those principles within IG processes be established, per the > Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative > "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet > governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus > Convention" as a building block for such an effort. The code speaks to the procedural component of the principles but not the substantive component, directly. Per the conversation between Parminder and I, and the specific endorsement of the Swiss government in the above-mentioned statement (which we left out), would anyone have a problem adding a third sentence something like, "In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with the Tunis mandate." IGF 2.0 really needs to pay more attention to developing country issues, no? > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out > for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory > Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > ****Membership of the MAG** > > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in > Internet administration and the development of Internet-related > technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. > However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil > society participation. This is from an earlier phase, do we still have the same concern about the balance re: the TC particularly? > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to > the Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts > to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting > agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a > central obligation of the IGF. I think treating rights coherently in one place and not conflating it with just the IG principles is logically coherent and avoids us appearing to unilaterally reinterpret the latter just because of where the MAG decided to shoehorn a topic on Sharm agenda. It does not give up the linkage between rights and the IG principles, it makes rights an overarching concern with respect to everything, including the principles, without being conceptually confused. So this works for me. I will be largely offline the next few days, so however the text is finalized, I vote yes on adoption. Best, Bill____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 17 01:35:36 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:05:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for In-Reply-To: <6459936D-328E-4A51-B7B8-8678361C2ACE@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> <6459936D-328E-4A51-B7B8-8678361C2ACE@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A600DA8.4010205@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Just noticed a couple little things. > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards >> a code of good practice on public participation in Internet >> governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus >> Convention" as a building block for such an effort. > > The code speaks to the procedural component of the principles but not > the substantive component, directly. Per the conversation between > Parminder and I, and the specific endorsement of the Swiss government > in the above-mentioned statement (which we left out), would anyone > have a problem adding a third sentence something like, > > "In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to > consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and > to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping > with the Tunis mandate." > Yes. we should add it. > > I think treating rights coherently in one place and not conflating it > with just the IG principles is logically coherent and avoids us > appearing to unilaterally reinterpret the latter just because of where > the MAG decided to shoehorn a topic on Sharm agenda. It does not give > up the linkage between rights and the IG principles, it makes rights > an overarching concern with respect to everything, including the > principles, without being conceptually confused. So this works for me. i prefer for us to go with a broader conception of WSIS principles (geneva principles, DoP etc), and i have suggested text which keeps our response on rights in WSIS principles part of the questionnaire but the specific text refers to DoP. Parminder > > I will be largely offline the next few days, so however the text is > finalized, I vote yes on adoption. > > Best, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ > 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 From natasha at apc.org Fri Jul 17 02:08:59 2009 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:08:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF Secretarial In-Reply-To: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> References: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Thank you Ian and Ginger particularly for an excellent job! Am happy with the edits as noted below ... and also support the inclusion of Bill's additional sentence to Q2. Best, Natasha On 16 Jul 2009, at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest > suggestions for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened > form of Shiva's text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now > found in Q6, and Ken's recent changes. This is basically all of the > latest compromises. I hope I have not missed anything. > > Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July > 17th. I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some > waking hours. I ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is > too late to bring up new issues. If you have new ideas, please make > note and reserve them for an upcoming statement. This will be our > contribution to the questionnaire. > > Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am > optimistic that we will be ready to start a call for consensus > tomorrow at 8:00 GMT. > > Best, Ginger > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it > in the Tunis Agenda? > > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is > specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to > its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing > with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy- > making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on > its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder > dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep > up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each > successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of > stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing > global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the > objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making > in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it > managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is > taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is > moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It > needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable > 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require > most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) > and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations > and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all > stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing > world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, > where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point > of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step > because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different > governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under- > developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi- > stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional > initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal > way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss > public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance > in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > stability and development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take > place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of > workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this > discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is > an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and > needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the > debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, > inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As > already noted, some national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek > to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should > be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full > involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and > international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG > “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate > access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the > Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked > these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis > Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing > basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance > processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The > Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s > statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added > as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion > of those principles within IG processes be established, per the > Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative > "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet > governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus > Convention" as a building block for such an effort. > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/ > government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the > level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It > is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase > than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to > the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now > workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and > civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the > IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as > individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge > at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the > respective stakeholder groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? > "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers > that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on > any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact > of the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding > and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as > well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an > opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory > process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this > process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an > IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality > of the participatory governance process and this will have other and > potentially widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out > for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory > Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > ****Membership of the MAG** > > •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi- > stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. > Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy > for this new experiment in global governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in > Internet administration and the development of Internet-related > technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. > However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil > society participation. > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, > groups with special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > ****Role and Structure of the MAG** > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right > time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start > with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is > expected to perform. > > • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for > the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with > carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion > that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more > effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into > something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all > aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program > committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet > governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. > > • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report > should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against > relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and > also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, > once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the > requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide > necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of > continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, > which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such > a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of > a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We > express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF > Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been > responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The > Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to > perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the > participation of those from civil society in developing and least > developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to > the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings > and the IGF preparatory consultations. > > > ****Special Advisors and Chair** > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria > for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of > diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also > be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of > Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi- > stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and > to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures > to improve effectiveness. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it > to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy- > making processes more participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However > for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable > funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its > functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. > To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement > of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In > addition, we submit: > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues > where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more > inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the > current operational processes to identify ways for more active > inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but > not limited to, remote participation including transcription and > archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the > Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the > special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, > including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic > people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons > and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous > peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the > poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned > with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures > built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes > of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners > and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in > support of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s > inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it > may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be > reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF > might consider how other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for > which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done > elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings > should more clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken > into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting > dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for > budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to > transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and > the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the > implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF > and these should be complemented by more formal support and > structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF > meeting. > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be > forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution > drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for > the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in > general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result- > oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to > engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in > the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF > web site, for instance under a specific heading. > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster > greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage > of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in > for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and > gender. > > Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably > for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its > website, in order to increase participation and feedback from > stakeholders. > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to > the Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts > to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting > agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a > central obligation of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to > emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in > Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of > individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. > This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion > of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles > that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial > facets. > > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable > research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare > consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jul 17 03:20:28 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:20:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF In-Reply-To: References: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A60263C.3020108@wzb.eu> Hello, thank you from me as well, Ginger. I support the text as is but like it better with the changes suggested by Bill. jeanette Natasha Primo wrote: > Hello > > Thank you Ian and Ginger particularly for an excellent job! Am happy > with the edits as noted below ... and also support the inclusion of > Bill's additional sentence to Q2. > > Best, > Natasha > > > > On 16 Jul 2009, at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest >> suggestions for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened >> form of Shiva's text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now >> found in Q6, and Ken's recent changes. This is basically all of the >> latest compromises. I hope I have not missed anything. >> >> Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July >> 17th. I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some >> waking hours. I ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is >> too late to bring up new issues. If you have new ideas, please make >> note and reserve them for an upcoming statement. This will be our >> contribution to the questionnaire. >> >> Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am >> optimistic that we will be ready to start a call for consensus >> tomorrow at 8:00 GMT. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> >> >> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically >> set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are >> contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet >> governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. >> >> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its >> way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue >> on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the >> on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive >> IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it >> is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues >> and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a >> dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. >> Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to >> influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the >> central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards >> fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue >> to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and >> purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most >> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >> processes of real policy making. >> >> In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate >> discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting >> international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) >> and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and >> other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). >> >> IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards >> fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all >> stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the >> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing >> world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, >> where appropriate, making recommendations'. >> >> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >> >> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point >> of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step >> because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different >> governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >> >> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >> participants, especially from developing countries with >> under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >> >> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder >> dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between >> the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is >> trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). >> >> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order >> to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >> development of the Internet. >> >> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication >> that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue >> so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include >> all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and >> others, which have not been adequately addressed. >> >> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >> processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As >> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to >> establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including >> through IGF Remote Hubs. >> >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >> organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an >> equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and >> ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into >> account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles >> throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF >> to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >> principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF >> has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key >> element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has >> consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence >> welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the >> WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core >> of all IGF discussions. >> >> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards >> a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance >> - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >> building block for such an effort. >> >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? >> Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level >> of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is >> observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than >> there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the >> request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now >> workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and >> civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >> >> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >> question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the >> IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as >> individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at >> the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the >> respective stakeholder groups. >> >> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? >> "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that >> has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the >> multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any >> particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of >> the IGF. >> >> The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding >> and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as >> well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >> opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process >> of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of >> consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF >> achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of >> the participatory governance process and this will have other and >> potentially widespread impact. >> >> >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> >> >> ****Membership of the MAG** >> >> •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >> remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure >> legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >> • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >> representation should not be at the expense of civil society >> participation. >> • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >> with special >> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >> >> ****Role and Structure of the MAG** >> >> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right >> time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, >> it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to >> perform. >> >> • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for >> the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with >> carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion >> that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more >> effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into >> something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all >> aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program >> committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet >> governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. >> >> • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups >> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >> >> • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of >> paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for >> the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond >> 2010. >> >> • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, >> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >> drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a >> need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >> >> >> ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** >> >> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF >> Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible >> for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be >> provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >> >> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >> of those from civil society in developing and least developed >> countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the >> effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and >> the IGF preparatory consultations. >> >> >> ****Special Advisors and Chair** >> >> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind >> for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors >> should be kept within a reasonable limit. >> >> >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for >> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and >> to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures >> to improve effectiveness. >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >> Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making >> processes more participative and democratic. >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However >> for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable >> funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its >> functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. >> To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement >> of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. >> >> >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> >> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >> we submit: >> >> The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues >> where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more >> inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the >> current operational processes to identify ways for more active >> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but >> not limited to, remote participation including transcription and >> archiving. >> >> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the >> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including >> migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. >> We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons >> with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples >> worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of >> the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with >> promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on >> an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet >> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities >> and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in >> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad >> based economic and social development. >> >> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s >> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may >> be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived >> from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how >> other Internet governance >> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which >> global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done >> elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >> >> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >> more clearly >> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >> options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into >> consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates >> and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for >> budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to >> transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. >> >> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >> support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should >> be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from >> the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >> >> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where >> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be >> forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution >> drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for >> the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in >> general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented >> formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in >> concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF in a >> manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF web site, for >> instance under a specific heading. >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >> >> Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably >> for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, >> in order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. >> >> >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the >> Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to >> give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting >> agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a >> central obligation of the IGF. >> >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to >> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in >> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals >> to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in >> keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and >> relevant aspects of >> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each >> other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that >> should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare >> consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ > > Natasha Primo > National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative > Association for Progressive Communications > Johannesburg, South Africa > Tel/Fax: +27118372122 > Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From lohento at oridev.org Fri Jul 17 03:35:30 2009 From: lohento at oridev.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:35:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF In-Reply-To: <4A60263C.3020108@wzb.eu> References: <4A5F8CAF.40009@gmail.com> <4A60263C.3020108@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A6029C2.2070909@oridev.org> Hello I support the text with the last addition suggested by Bill on linkages between development and IG Thanks everyone. KL Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > Hello, thank you from me as well, Ginger. I support the text as is but > like it better with the changes suggested by Bill. > jeanette > > Natasha Primo wrote: >> Hello >> >> Thank you Ian and Ginger particularly for an excellent job! Am happy >> with the edits as noted below ... and also support the inclusion of >> Bill's additional sentence to Q2. >> >> Best, >> Natasha >> >> >> >> On 16 Jul 2009, at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest >>> suggestions for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened >>> form of Shiva's text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now >>> found in Q6, and Ken's recent changes. This is basically all of the >>> latest compromises. I hope I have not missed anything. >>> >>> Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July >>> 17th. I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some >>> waking hours. I ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is >>> too late to bring up new issues. If you have new ideas, please make >>> note and reserve them for an upcoming statement. This will be our >>> contribution to the questionnaire. >>> >>> Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am >>> optimistic that we will be ready to start a call for consensus >>> tomorrow at 8:00 GMT. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it >>> in the Tunis Agenda? >>> >>> >>> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is >>> specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to >>> its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing >>> with Internet governance, and specifically about public >>> policy-making in this area. >>> >>> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on >>> its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder >>> dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep >>> up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each >>> successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of >>> stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing >>> global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the >>> objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making >>> in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it >>> managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is >>> taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is >>> moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It >>> needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable >>> 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most >>> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >>> processes of real policy making. >>> >>> In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate >>> discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting >>> international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) >>> and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations >>> and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). >>> >>> IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards >>> fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all >>> stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the >>> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing >>> world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, >>> where appropriate, making recommendations'. >>> >>> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >>> >>> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >>> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point >>> of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step >>> because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different >>> governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >>> >>> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >>> participants, especially from developing countries with >>> under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >>> >>> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >>> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >>> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional >>> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal >>> way). >>> >>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss >>> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance >>> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >>> stability and development of the Internet. >>> >>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take >>> place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of >>> workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this >>> discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is >>> an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and >>> needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the >>> debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, >>> inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. >>> >>> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >>> processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As >>> already noted, some national and regional processes are already >>> taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek >>> to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including >>> through IGF Remote Hubs. >>> >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> >>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should >>> be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full >>> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and >>> international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG >>> “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate >>> access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the >>> Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked >>> these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis >>> Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing >>> basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance >>> processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up >>> discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The >>> Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >>> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s >>> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added >>> as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >>> >>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion >>> of those principles within IG processes be established, per the >>> Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative >>> "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet >>> governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus >>> Convention" as a building block for such an effort. >>> >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder >>> group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the >>> level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It >>> is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase >>> than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to >>> the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now >>> workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and >>> civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >>> >>> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >>> question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the >>> IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as >>> individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge >>> at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the >>> respective stakeholder groups. >>> >>> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >>> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? >>> "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers >>> that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the >>> multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on >>> any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact >>> of the IGF. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding >>> and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as >>> well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >>> opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory >>> process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this >>> process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an >>> IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality >>> of the participatory governance process and this will have other and >>> potentially widespread impact. >>> >>> >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out >>> for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory >>> Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>> >>> >>> ****Membership of the MAG** >>> >>> •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >>> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >>> remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure >>> legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >>> • We agree that the organizations having an important role in >>> Internet administration and the development of Internet-related >>> technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. >>> However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil >>> society participation. >>> • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, >>> groups with special >>> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >>> >>> ****Role and Structure of the MAG** >>> >>> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right >>> time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start >>> with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is >>> expected to perform. >>> >>> • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for >>> the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with >>> carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >>> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion >>> that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more >>> effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into >>> something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all >>> aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program >>> committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet >>> governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. >>> >>> • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups >>> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >>> >>> • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report >>> should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against >>> relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and >>> also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, >>> once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the >>> requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide >>> necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of >>> continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >>> >>> • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, >>> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >>> drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such >>> a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >>> >>> >>> ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** >>> >>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of >>> a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >>> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We >>> express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF >>> Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been >>> responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The >>> Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to >>> perform its role effectively. >>> >>> In addition, a fund should be established to support the >>> participation of those from civil society in developing and least >>> developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to >>> the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings >>> and the IGF preparatory consultations. >>> >>> >>> ****Special Advisors and Chair** >>> >>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria >>> for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of >>> diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also >>> be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of >>> Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. >>> >>> >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>> >>> Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and >>> to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures >>> to improve effectiveness. >>> >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >>> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it >>> to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be >>> sought. >>> >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >>> Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make >>> policy-making processes more participative and democratic. >>> >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However >>> for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable >>> funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its >>> functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. >>> To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement >>> of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. >>> >>> >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>> processes? >>> >>> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In >>> addition, we submit: >>> >>> The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues >>> where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more >>> inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the >>> current operational processes to identify ways for more active >>> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but >>> not limited to, remote participation including transcription and >>> archiving. >>> >>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the >>> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the >>> special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, >>> including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >>> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic >>> people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons >>> and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous >>> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the >>> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned >>> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures >>> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes >>> of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners >>> and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in >>> support of broad based economic and social development. >>> >>> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >>> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s >>> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >>> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >>> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it >>> may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be >>> reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF >>> might consider how other Internet governance >>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >>> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for >>> which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done >>> elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >>> >>> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings >>> should more clearly >>> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >>> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >>> options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken >>> into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting >>> dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for >>> budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to >>> transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. >>> >>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and >>> the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the >>> implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF >>> and these should be complemented by more formal support and >>> structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF >>> meeting. >>> >>> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where >>> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be >>> forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution >>> drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for >>> the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in >>> general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and >>> result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged >>> to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction >>> in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the >>> IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. >>> >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster >>> greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage >>> of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in >>> for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and >>> gender. >>> >>> Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably >>> for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its >>> website, in order to increase participation and feedback from >>> stakeholders. >>> >>> >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to >>> the Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts >>> to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting >>> agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a >>> central obligation of the IGF. >>> >>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to >>> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in >>> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of >>> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. >>> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open >>> Internet”, and relevant aspects of >>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>> >>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion >>> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each >>> other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles >>> that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>> >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable >>> research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare >>> consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ >> >> Natasha Primo >> National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative >> Association for Progressive Communications >> Johannesburg, South Africa >> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 17 04:27:44 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:57:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 (rights) In-Reply-To: <4A6002C5.10608@itforchange.net> References: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> <4A5F264C.3060406@gmail.com> <4A6002C5.10608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A603600.6090000@itforchange.net> Also to keep in mind the connected issue of what stand will IGC and IGC MAG members take when decisions (instructions to moderator etc) for the IGF session on WSIS principles are taken, with regard to a discussion on rights in this session. I can assure that there are already strong views to the contrary from some expected sections, which will be actively pushed. parminder Parminder wrote: > All > > I have not been able to figure out at all what is lost by keeping the > rights part here in Q 2 , and also linking it to WSIS principles. I > have already pointed out to the fact there is no precise definition of > the term, and it is open to a range of interpretations, as seen by the > secretariat linking the DoP to this question, as also the discussions > in MAG. Why would we not choose the interpretation that most suits us > today, which also seems to have some official support. > > I have argued earlier that if we give up the linkage of rights to WSIS > principles we will be compromising the gains we have made about > inclusion of rights in WSIS agenda, whereby rights are to be discussed > in Sharm in the session on WSIS principles. > > Also if the linkage can be built, we can use the IGF mandate, para 72 > (i) to assess embodiment of 'WSIS principles' in IG processes to > included assessment of 'rights' in IG processes. The thing we > principally want to do today. > > I would want to text to stay as it is, and also where it is, ie Q 2. > > To accommodate Bill's concern > > I am ready to change the sentence - 'A reading of the WSIS principles > shows repeated mention of rights' > > to ' a reading of Geneva declaration of principles shows repeated > mention of rights' ... > > > parminder > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Bill and all, >> >> Q2 the issue of rights, particularly the section: >> **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. >> Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a >> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of >> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** >> >> Is it acceptable to say the following, and also apply Bill's >> suggestion to move this section to Q7? >> >> The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to >> the Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts >> to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting >> agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a >> central obligation of the IGF. >> >> (this continues as below, and would be moved to Q7 with the above) >> >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to >> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in >> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of >> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. >> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", >> and relevant aspects of >> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion >> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each >> other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that >> should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> gp >> >> >> William Drake wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm sorry but this means nothing. We can't reinterpret the whole >>> history of negotiations and tell governments you think you agreed to >>> x but actually you agreed to y because Chengetai or whomever put a >>> link to the whole doc rather than correct section, which isn't >>> possible in this case. >>>> >>>> On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 >>>> articles of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I >>>> agree with Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs? >>> >>> By recognizing that these are references to the UDHR etc at the >>> front of a text about the info society generally, not a statement >>> that multilingual domain names, net stability, transparency or >>> anything else are recognized by the parties as rights. Which again >>> is not to say that one couldn't view and advocate those points from >>> a rights perspective. The ONLY "right" that is specifically >>> mentioned/agreed in the WSIS principles on IG is in 49, which says >>> states have the (apparently exclusive) right to make public policy. >>>> >>>> 4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options-- >>>> (Q6 also) >>>> A) that we use this shortened version: >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to >>>> be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster >>>> greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage >>>> of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns >>> >>> Agree >>> >>>> in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment >>>> and gender. >>> >>> FWIW the caucus has previously made statements about the need for >>> the IGF to focus on IG per se rather than ICT4D and questioning >>> unclear links to environmental policy. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 06:14:34 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:14:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF In-Reply-To: <4A6029C2.2070909@oridev.org> Message-ID: <1627389094CB4EE3AA08B944653CF5F0@userPC> I agree with this (and to the final text suggested by Bill M -----Original Message----- From: Ken Lohento [mailto:lohento at oridev.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 3:36 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF Hello I support the text with the last addition suggested by Bill on linkages between development and IG Thanks everyone. KL Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > Hello, thank you from me as well, Ginger. I support the text as is but > like it better with the changes suggested by Bill. > jeanette > > Natasha Primo wrote: >> Hello >> >> Thank you Ian and Ginger particularly for an excellent job! Am happy >> with the edits as noted below ... and also support the inclusion of >> Bill's additional sentence to Q2. >> >> Best, >> Natasha >> >> >> >> On 16 Jul 2009, at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest >>> suggestions for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened >>> form of Shiva's text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now >>> found in Q6, and Ken's recent changes. This is basically all of the >>> latest compromises. I hope I have not missed anything. >>> >>> Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July >>> 17th. I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some >>> waking hours. I ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is >>> too late to bring up new issues. If you have new ideas, please make >>> note and reserve them for an upcoming statement. This will be our >>> contribution to the questionnaire. >>> >>> Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am >>> optimistic that we will be ready to start a call for consensus >>> tomorrow at 8:00 GMT. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it >>> in the Tunis Agenda? >>> >>> >>> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is >>> specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to >>> its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing >>> with Internet governance, and specifically about public >>> policy-making in this area. >>> >>> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on >>> its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder >>> dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep >>> up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each >>> successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of >>> stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing >>> global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the >>> objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making >>> in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it >>> managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is >>> taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is >>> moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It >>> needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable >>> 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most >>> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >>> processes of real policy making. >>> >>> In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate >>> discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting >>> international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) >>> and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations >>> and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). >>> >>> IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards >>> fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all >>> stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the >>> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing >>> world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, >>> where appropriate, making recommendations'. >>> >>> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >>> >>> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin >>> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point >>> of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step >>> because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different >>> governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >>> >>> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >>> participants, especially from developing countries with >>> under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >>> >>> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for >>> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible >>> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional >>> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal >>> way). >>> >>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss >>> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance >>> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >>> stability and development of the Internet. >>> >>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take >>> place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of >>> workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this >>> discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is >>> an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and >>> needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the >>> debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, >>> inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. >>> >>> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >>> processes at the national, regional level" similar to the IGF. As >>> already noted, some national and regional processes are already >>> taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek >>> to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including >>> through IGF Remote Hubs. >>> >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> >>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should >>> be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full >>> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and >>> international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG >>> “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate >>> access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the >>> Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked >>> these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis >>> Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing >>> basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance >>> processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up >>> discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The >>> Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic >>> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s >>> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added >>> as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >>> >>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion >>> of those principles within IG processes be established, per the >>> Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative >>> "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet >>> governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus >>> Convention" as a building block for such an effort. >>> >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? >>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder >>> group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the >>> level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It >>> is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase >>> than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to >>> the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now >>> workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and >>> civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >>> >>> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >>> question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the >>> IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as >>> individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge >>> at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the >>> respective stakeholder groups. >>> >>> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >>> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? >>> "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers >>> that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the >>> multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on >>> any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact >>> of the IGF. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding >>> and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as >>> well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an >>> opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory >>> process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this >>> process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an >>> IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality >>> of the participatory governance process and this will have other and >>> potentially widespread impact. >>> >>> >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out >>> for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory >>> Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>> >>> >>> ****Membership of the MAG** >>> >>> •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the >>> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be >>> remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure >>> legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. >>> • We agree that the organizations having an important role in >>> Internet administration and the development of Internet-related >>> technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. >>> However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil >>> society participation. >>> • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, >>> groups with special >>> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >>> >>> ****Role and Structure of the MAG** >>> >>> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right >>> time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start >>> with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is >>> expected to perform. >>> >>> • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for >>> the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with >>> carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to >>> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion >>> that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more >>> effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into >>> something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all >>> aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program >>> committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet >>> governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. >>> >>> • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups >>> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >>> >>> • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report >>> should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against >>> relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and >>> also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, >>> once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the >>> requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide >>> necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of >>> continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >>> >>> • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, >>> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be >>> drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such >>> a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >>> >>> >>> ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** >>> >>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of >>> a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >>> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We >>> express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF >>> Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been >>> responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The >>> Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to >>> perform its role effectively. >>> >>> In addition, a fund should be established to support the >>> participation of those from civil society in developing and least >>> developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to >>> the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings >>> and the IGF preparatory consultations. >>> >>> >>> ****Special Advisors and Chair** >>> >>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria >>> for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of >>> diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also >>> be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of >>> Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. >>> >>> >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>> >>> Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and >>> to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures >>> to improve effectiveness. >>> >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >>> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it >>> to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be >>> sought. >>> >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >>> Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make >>> policy-making processes more participative and democratic. >>> >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However >>> for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable >>> funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its >>> functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. >>> To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement >>> of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. >>> >>> >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what >>> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, >>> functioning and processes? >>> >>> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In >>> addition, we submit: >>> >>> The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues >>> where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more >>> inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the >>> current operational processes to identify ways for more active >>> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but >>> not limited to, remote participation including transcription and >>> archiving. >>> >>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the >>> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the >>> special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, >>> including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >>> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic >>> people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons >>> and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous >>> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the >>> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned >>> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures >>> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes >>> of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized >>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners >>> and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in >>> support of broad based economic and social development. >>> >>> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >>> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s >>> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >>> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >>> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it >>> may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be >>> reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF >>> might consider how other Internet governance >>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >>> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for >>> which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done >>> elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. >>> >>> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings >>> should more clearly >>> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >>> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >>> options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken >>> into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting >>> dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for >>> budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to >>> transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. >>> >>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and >>> the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the >>> implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF >>> and these should be complemented by more formal support and >>> structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF >>> meeting. >>> >>> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where >>> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be >>> forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution >>> drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for >>> the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in >>> general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and >>> result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged >>> to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction >>> in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the >>> IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. >>> >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster >>> greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage >>> of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in >>> for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and >>> gender. >>> >>> Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably >>> for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its >>> website, in order to increase participation and feedback from >>> stakeholders. >>> >>> >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to >>> the Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts >>> to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting >>> agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a >>> central obligation of the IGF. >>> >>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to >>> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in >>> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of >>> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. >>> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open >>> Internet”, and relevant aspects of >>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>> >>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion >>> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each >>> other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles >>> that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>> >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable >>> research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare >>> consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\/ >> /\\//\\//\/ >> >> Natasha Primo >> National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative >> Association for Progressive Communications >> Johannesburg, South Africa >> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 08:16:00 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:46:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire, last comments, Call for consensus Message-ID: <4A606B80.5070608@gmail.com> Hi everyone, thanks for your comments. In particular, Shiva, thank you for reiterating your comments and concerns. I particularly appreciate your acceptance that the debate is over, and your acceptance that we can continue discussion later on the list, but that it is too late to incorporate these points now. There is another opportunity for statements in August. Here I detail the final changes proposed in the final call for comments. If you have any other comments only ONLY on these items, please make them as soon as possible. The final text is below, with the two changes marked between **, both in Q2. At the same time, I am opening a 12 hour call for Consensus. If we do have consensus, I will then post the questionnaire tomorrow, as we are well into "overtime" already. Thanks again, everyone, Best, Ginger Q2 I have added the new text proposed by Bill in reference to development, and noted it between ** below for easier reference. "In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with the Tunis mandate." Q4 Since it is a new point, (balance TC and CS participation) and I see no harm in leaving it in, I have NOT taken out the text referred in Bill's second point. This text was left IN. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. Q2 In addressing "rights", with last comments from both Parminder and Bill, I have accepted Parminder's specification using ' a reading of Geneva declaration of principles shows repeated mention of rights'. I do not like to make changes to this text while Bill is offline, but I agree with Parminder's reasoning that this section does belong in Q2, so I am moving it back. My apologies to Bill, only because he will not have a chance to opine. This is also between ** below for your reference. A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. Final text: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. **In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with the Tunis mandate.** **A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.** The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? ****Membership of the MAG** •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with special needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. ****Role and Structure of the MAG** With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. ****Special Advisors and Chair** The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 08:47:14 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:17:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC questionnaire, last comments, Call for consensus In-Reply-To: <4A606B80.5070608@gmail.com> References: <4A606B80.5070608@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger, On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, thanks for your comments. > > In particular, Shiva, thank you for reiterating your comments and concerns. > I particularly appreciate your acceptance that the debate is over, and your > acceptance that we can continue discussion later on the list, but that it is > too late to incorporate these points now. There is another opportunity for > statements in August. Thanks for understanding and for having paid so much attention so far. I wish I had more time to explain and make the necessary corrections to cause an agreement. Thank you. > > > Here I detail the final changes proposed in the final call for comments. If > you have any other comments only ONLY on these items, please make them as > soon as possible. The final text is below, with the two changes marked > between **, both in Q2. > > At the same time, I am opening a 12 hour call for Consensus. If we do have > consensus, I will then post the questionnaire tomorrow, as we are well into > "overtime" already. > > Thanks again, everyone, > Best, Ginger > > > > Q2 I have added the new text proposed by Bill in reference to development, > and noted it between ** below for easier reference. > > "In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to consider > the linkages between Internet governance and development and to evolve a > development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with the Tunis > mandate." > > Q4 Since it is a new point, (balance TC and CS participation) and I see no > harm in leaving it in, I have NOT taken out the text referred in Bill's > second point. This text was left IN. > > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > > Q2 In addressing "rights", with last comments from both Parminder and Bill, > I have accepted Parminder's specification using ' a reading of Geneva > declaration of principles shows repeated mention of rights'. > > I do not like to make changes to this text while Bill is offline, but I > agree with Parminder's reasoning that this section does belong in Q2, so I > am moving it back. My apologies to Bill, only because he will not have a > chance to opine. This is also between ** below for your reference. > > A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated > mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and > principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority > of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. > > > Final text: > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the > Tunis Agenda? > > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set > out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained > in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and > specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way > to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. > However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process > of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep > up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF > take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on > them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real > policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how > much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is > taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving > towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to > continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and > purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes > of real policy making. > > In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate discourse > between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public > policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with > appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on > matters under their purview' (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in > proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of > the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying > emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking > with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not > accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely > recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models > beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, > especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and > expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder > dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the > global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this > innovation in a relatively formal way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development > of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The > participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the > controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. > The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is > still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may > cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in > areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately > addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some > national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further > encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with > these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a > stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account > multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet > Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this > arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting > issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those > principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To > that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good > practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the > principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such > an effort. > > **In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to > consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and > to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with > the Tunis mandate.** > > **A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated > mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and > principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority > of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.** > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, > while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and > applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates > regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern > the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it > impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted > as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that > there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during > WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF > Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that > include business, government, academia and civil society working together > and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question > is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on > participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder > process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance > issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and > perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as > during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to > experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many > are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process > and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, > including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), > Secretariat and open consultations? > > > ****Membership of the MAG** > > •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society > representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in > global governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation > should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with > special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > ****Role and Structure of the MAG** > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to > revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be > useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this > function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially > important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to > enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more > than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet > governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. > > • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). > These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops > connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal > tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts > of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for > the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary > General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis > Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the > desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for > this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also > expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN > process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its > mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect > and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely > under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the > IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs > to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of > those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with > perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the > discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations. > > > ****Special Advisors and Chair** > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for > the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be > kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder > policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of > the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being > co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial > an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs > from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > processes more participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from > publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we > believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN > organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we > submit: > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely > heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote > participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information > Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of > marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, > internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We > shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with > disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural > people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often > landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open > access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking > to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to > specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as > practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary > resource in support of broad based economic and social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception > but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology > support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental > conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet > Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. > Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement > between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global > face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than > the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more > clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources > and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and > city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as > well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be > announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, > and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is > competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a > regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote > Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but > this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC > believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops > and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more > tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also > be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their > interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on > the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide > substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further > enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of > participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the > broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty > alleviation, the environment and gender. > > Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key > documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to > increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce > a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and > collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also > assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports > on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Jul 17 08:57:00 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:57:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] If you want to understand the Internet - you have to understand that 1 + 1 = 1 Message-ID: <874c02a20907170557jaa75b44m8c5dd08090d108ea@mail.gmail.com> Simple math http://bit.ly/IstDr Now how does that apply to governance? For any government model of the any Internet process to survive it must conform to the math. regards joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From maja.andjelkovic at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 09:37:14 2009 From: maja.andjelkovic at gmail.com (Maja Andjelkovic) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:37:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF In-Reply-To: <1627389094CB4EE3AA08B944653CF5F0@userPC> References: <4A6029C2.2070909@oridev.org> <1627389094CB4EE3AA08B944653CF5F0@userPC> Message-ID: <6a19eea00907170637n115cab14t85225fc6cd8adf82@mail.gmail.com> Please count my vote for the final text too. Well done, and thank you, Ginger. 2009/7/17 Michael Gurstein > I agree with this (and to the final text suggested by Bill > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:lohento at oridev.org] > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 3:36 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF > > > Hello > > I support the text with the last addition suggested by Bill on linkages > between development and IG > > Thanks everyone. > > KL > > > Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > > Hello, thank you from me as well, Ginger. I support the text as is but > > like it better with the changes suggested by Bill. > > jeanette > > > > Natasha Primo wrote: > >> Hello > >> > >> Thank you Ian and Ginger particularly for an excellent job! Am happy > >> with the edits as noted below ... and also support the inclusion of > >> Bill's additional sentence to Q2. > >> > >> Best, > >> Natasha > >> > >> > >> > >> On 16 Jul 2009, at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> > >>> Hello everyone, > >>> > >>> I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest > >>> suggestions for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened > >>> form of Shiva's text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now > >>> found in Q6, and Ken's recent changes. This is basically all of the > >>> latest compromises. I hope I have not missed anything. > >>> > >>> Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July > >>> 17th. I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some > >>> waking hours. I ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is > >>> too late to bring up new issues. If you have new ideas, please make > >>> note and reserve them for an upcoming statement. This will be our > >>> contribution to the questionnaire. > >>> > >>> Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am > >>> optimistic that we will be ready to start a call for consensus > >>> tomorrow at 8:00 GMT. > >>> > >>> Best, Ginger > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it > >>> in the Tunis Agenda? > >>> > >>> > >>> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is > >>> specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to > >>> its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing > >>> with Internet governance, and specifically about public > >>> policy-making in this area. > >>> > >>> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on > >>> its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder > >>> dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep > >>> up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each > >>> successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of > >>> stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing > >>> global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the > >>> objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making > >>> in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it > >>> managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is > >>> taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is > >>> moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It > >>> needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable > >>> 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most > >>> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > >>> processes of real policy making. > >>> > >>> In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate > >>> discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > >>> international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) > >>> and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations > >>> and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). > >>> > >>> IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards > >>> fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all > >>> stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the > >>> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing > >>> world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, > >>> where appropriate, making recommendations'. > >>> > >>> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > >>> > >>> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin > >>> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point > >>> of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step > >>> because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different > >>> governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > >>> > >>> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > >>> participants, especially from developing countries with > >>> under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > >>> > >>> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for > >>> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible > >>> interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional > >>> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal > >>> way). > >>> > >>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss > >>> public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance > >>> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > >>> stability and development of the Internet. > >>> > >>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take > >>> place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of > >>> workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this > >>> discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is > >>> an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and > >>> needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the > >>> debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, > >>> inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. > >>> > >>> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > >>> processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As > >>> already noted, some national and regional processes are already > >>> taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek > >>> to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including > >>> through IGF Remote Hubs. > >>> > >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > >>> > >>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should > >>> be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full > >>> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and > >>> international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG > >>> “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate > >>> access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the > >>> Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked > >>> these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis > >>> Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing > >>> basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance > >>> processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up > >>> discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The > >>> Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic > >>> activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s > >>> statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added > >>> as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > >>> > >>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion > >>> of those principles within IG processes be established, per the > >>> Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative > >>> "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet > >>> governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus > >>> Convention" as a building block for such an effort. > >>> > >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? > >>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder > >>> group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the > >>> level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It > >>> is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase > >>> than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to > >>> the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now > >>> workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and > >>> civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > >>> > >>> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > >>> question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the > >>> IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as > >>> individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge > >>> at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the > >>> respective stakeholder groups. > >>> > >>> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > >>> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? > >>> "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers > >>> that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > >>> multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on > >>> any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact > >>> of the IGF. > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding > >>> and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as > >>> well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an > >>> opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory > >>> process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this > >>> process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an > >>> IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality > >>> of the participatory governance process and this will have other and > >>> potentially widespread impact. > >>> > >>> > >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out > >>> for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory > >>> Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > >>> > >>> > >>> ****Membership of the MAG** > >>> > >>> •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the > >>> multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be > >>> remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure > >>> legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > >>> • We agree that the organizations having an important role in > >>> Internet administration and the development of Internet-related > >>> technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. > >>> However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil > >>> society participation. > >>> • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > >>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, > >>> groups with special > >>> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > >>> > >>> ****Role and Structure of the MAG** > >>> > >>> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right > >>> time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start > >>> with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is > >>> expected to perform. > >>> > >>> • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for > >>> the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with > >>> carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to > >>> further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion > >>> that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more > >>> effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into > >>> something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all > >>> aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program > >>> committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet > >>> governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. > >>> > >>> • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > >>> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > >>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > >>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > >>> > >>> • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report > >>> should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against > >>> relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and > >>> also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, > >>> once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the > >>> requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide > >>> necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of > >>> continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > >>> > >>> • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, > >>> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be > >>> drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such > >>> a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > >>> > >>> > >>> ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > >>> > >>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of > >>> a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > >>> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We > >>> express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF > >>> Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been > >>> responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The > >>> Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to > >>> perform its role effectively. > >>> > >>> In addition, a fund should be established to support the > >>> participation of those from civil society in developing and least > >>> developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to > >>> the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings > >>> and the IGF preparatory consultations. > >>> > >>> > >>> ****Special Advisors and Chair** > >>> > >>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria > >>> for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of > >>> diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also > >>> be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of > >>> Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. > >>> > >>> > >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > >>> mandate, and why/why not? > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > >>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > >>> > >>> Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for > >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > >>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and > >>> to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures > >>> to improve effectiveness. > >>> > >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > >>> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it > >>> to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > >>> sought. > >>> > >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > >>> Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make > >>> policy-making processes more participative and democratic. > >>> > >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However > >>> for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable > >>> funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its > >>> functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. > >>> To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement > >>> of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. > >>> > >>> > >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what > >>> improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, > >>> functioning and processes? > >>> > >>> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In > >>> addition, we submit: > >>> > >>> The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues > >>> where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more > >>> inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the > >>> current operational processes to identify ways for more active > >>> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but > >>> not limited to, remote participation including transcription and > >>> archiving. > >>> > >>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the > >>> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the > >>> special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, > >>> including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > >>> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic > >>> people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons > >>> and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous > >>> peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the > >>> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned > >>> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures > >>> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes > >>> of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized > >>> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners > >>> and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in > >>> support of broad based economic and social development. > >>> > >>> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > >>> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s > >>> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > >>> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > >>> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it > >>> may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be > >>> reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF > >>> might consider how other Internet governance > >>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > >>> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for > >>> which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done > >>> elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. > >>> > >>> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings > >>> should more clearly > >>> support participation by individuals and organizations with few > >>> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > >>> options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken > >>> into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting > >>> dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for > >>> budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to > >>> transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. > >>> > >>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and > >>> the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the > >>> implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF > >>> and these should be complemented by more formal support and > >>> structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF > >>> meeting. > >>> > >>> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > >>> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be > >>> forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution > >>> drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for > >>> the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in > >>> general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and > >>> result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged > >>> to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction > >>> in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the > >>> IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. > >>> > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > >>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > >>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster > >>> greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage > >>> of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in > >>> for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and > >>> gender. > >>> > >>> Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably > >>> for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its > >>> website, in order to increase participation and feedback from > >>> stakeholders. > >>> > >>> > >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? > >>> > >>> The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to > >>> the Internet Governance agenda. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts > >>> to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting > >>> agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a > >>> central obligation of the IGF. > >>> > >>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > >>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to > >>> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in > >>> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of > >>> individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. > >>> This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > >>> Internet”, and relevant aspects of > >>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > >>> > >>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion > >>> of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > >>> other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles > >>> that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > >>> > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > >>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > >>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable > >>> research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare > >>> consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >> > >> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\/ > >> /\\//\\//\/ > >> > >> Natasha Primo > >> National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative > >> Association for Progressive Communications > >> Johannesburg, South Africa > >> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 > >> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 09:53:01 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:23:01 -0430 Subject: [governance] [Re: IGC questionnaire, last comments, Call for consensus] cont'd and note Message-ID: <4A60823D.3030003@gmail.com> Thanks you for the affirmations so far, I ask that everyone read the final text carefully and post their agreement/disagreement. Note has been made that **Special Advisors and Chair** should be only 'Special advisors' (or it should be 'special advisors to the chair', but the former will suffice, because the chair-related text is no longer there. So--I am going to change **Special Advisors and Chair** to **Special Advisors** I do not think that this affects the affirmations of consensus received so far, but if anyone disagrees, please let me know. Thanks! I look forward to your final comments (hopefully of agreement :)) Best, gp Hi everyone, thanks for your comments. In particular, Shiva, thank you for reiterating your comments and concerns. I particularly appreciate your acceptance that the debate is over, and your acceptance that we can continue discussion later on the list, but that it is too late to incorporate these points now. There is another opportunity for statements in August. Here I detail the final changes proposed in the final call for comments. If you have any other comments only ONLY on these items, please make them as soon as possible. The final text is below, with the two changes marked between **, both in Q2. At the same time, I am opening a 12 hour call for Consensus. If we do have consensus, I will then post the questionnaire tomorrow, as we are well into "overtime" already. Thanks again, everyone, Best, Ginger Q2 I have added the new text proposed by Bill in reference to development, and noted it between ** below for easier reference. "In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with the Tunis mandate." Q4 Since it is a new point, (balance TC and CS participation) and I see no harm in leaving it in, I have NOT taken out the text referred in Bill's second point. This text was left IN. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. Q2 In addressing "rights", with last comments from both Parminder and Bill, I have accepted Parminder's specification using ' a reading of Geneva declaration of principles shows repeated mention of rights'. I do not like to make changes to this text while Bill is offline, but I agree with Parminder's reasoning that this section does belong in Q2, so I am moving it back. My apologies to Bill, only because he will not have a chance to opine. This is also between ** below for your reference. A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. Final text: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. **In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with the Tunis mandate.** **A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.** The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? ****Membership of the MAG** •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with special needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. ****Role and Structure of the MAG** With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. ****Special Advisors and Chair** The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 10:39:42 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:09:42 -0430 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Message-ID: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> Hi everyone, Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ 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 From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 10:49:54 2009 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:49:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process In-Reply-To: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <58762b1a0907170749p1f3138c8y5a479d3c2d969e04@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final final version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it? Sorry for being a moron. Rebecca On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to > follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering > sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering the > input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not consist of > 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the whole > caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call for > Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the Call > for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day (July > 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Rebecca MacKinnon Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong UK: +44-7759-863406 USA: +1-617-939-3493 HK: +852-6334-8843 Mainland China: +86-13710820364 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 11:44:13 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:14:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: <58762b1a0907170749p1f3138c8y5a479d3c2d969e04@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> <58762b1a0907170749p1f3138c8y5a479d3c2d969e04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A609C4D.4000601@gmail.com> Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus. Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! Best, Ginger IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with the Tunis mandate. A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? **Membership of the MAG** •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with special needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. **Role and Structure of the MAG** With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. **Special Advisors** The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: > Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic > or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final > final version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it? > Sorry for being a moron. > Rebecca > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not > have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you > should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and > offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This > voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the > questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open > working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the > whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to > the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the > rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Rebecca MacKinnon > Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of > Hong Kong > > UK: +44-7759-863406 > USA: +1-617-939-3493 > HK: +852-6334-8843 > Mainland China: +86-13710820364 > > E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack ____________________________________________________________ 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 From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Jul 17 13:32:24 2009 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:32:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: <4A609C4D.4000601@gmail.com> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> <58762b1a0907170749p1f3138c8y5a479d3c2d969e04@mail.gmail.com> <4A609C4D.4000601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090717173224.GA11571@musti.tarvainen.info> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:14:13AM -0430, Ginger Paque (gpaque at gmail.com) wrote: > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the > Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the > day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! While I haven't been able to follow the discussion beyond on occasional glance, I now read the final text and find it very well done. Please count me in favour of the text as it stands. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ 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 From renate.bloem at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 14:08:01 2009 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:08:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: <4A609C4D.4000601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a60be05.1818d00a.5d36.ffff97ae@mx.google.com> Hi Ginger, A very comprehensive statement, well done! Like other lurking participants, who have not contributed, I feel a bit awkward, but happy nevertheless to give you my consent. Renate -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: vendredi, 17. juillet 2009 17:44 To: Rebecca MacKinnon Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque' Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus. Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! Best, Ginger IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to 'facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others' point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional. level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." WSIS principles also state that IG "should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism". Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with the Tunis mandate. A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? **Membership of the MAG** .Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. . We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. . When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with special needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. **Role and Structure of the MAG** With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. . One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. . It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. . MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. . IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. **Special Advisors** The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: "In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities." We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF's inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF - are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: > Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic > or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final > final version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it? > Sorry for being a moron. > Rebecca > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not > have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you > should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and > offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This > voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the > questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open > working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the > whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to > the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the > rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Rebecca MacKinnon > Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of > Hong Kong > > UK: +44-7759-863406 > USA: +1-617-939-3493 > HK: +852-6334-8843 > Mainland China: +86-13710820364 > > E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 14:16:48 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:46:48 -0430 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: <4a60be05.1818d00a.5d36.ffff97ae@mx.google.com> References: <4a60be05.1818d00a.5d36.ffff97ae@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4A60C010.6020806@gmail.com> Thanks Renate! There is no reason for awkwardness at all!! The open, informal "working group" worked to write the text. Now everyone should read the text, and respond to the Call for Consensus. The questionnaire is going out in your name too, so we should hear your expressed opinion. Best, Ginger Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > A very comprehensive statement, well done! Like other lurking participants, > who have not contributed, I feel a bit awkward, but happy nevertheless to > give you my consent. > > Renate > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: vendredi, 17. juillet 2009 17:44 > To: Rebecca MacKinnon > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque' > Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text > > Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final > text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus. > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have > time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be > considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering > the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not > consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is > the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, > the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the > Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the > day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > > IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus: > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going > process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF > meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is > important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and > seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue > helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's > success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real > policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of > success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, > but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural > evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on > 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to 'facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and > 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other > institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders > in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g > of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making > recommendations'. > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking > with each other, and at least start to see the others' point of view, if > not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is > widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder > dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the > global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying > this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, > particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have > not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional. level" similar to the IGF. As > already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking > shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish > formal relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations." WSIS principles also state that IG "should ensure an > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and > ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into > account multilingualism". Governments invoked these principles > throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF > to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has > not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of > its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated > programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss > government's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should > be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to > consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and > to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with > the Tunis mandate. > > A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated > mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give > rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, > allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central > obligation of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was > during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the > IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels > that include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF > on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any > particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the > IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and > perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as > during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to > experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and > many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance > process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > **Membership of the MAG** > > .Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > experiment in global governance. > . We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > . When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups > with special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > **Role and Structure of the MAG** > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will > be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > . One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out > this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG > that is little more than a program committee will not effectively > advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS > mandate. > > . It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > . MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by > the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph > 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the > discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > . IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up > for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is > also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. > While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of > the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with > the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries > with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct > of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations. > > > **Special Advisors** > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind > for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > should be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to > be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to > improve effectiveness. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > processes more participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding > from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end > we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN > organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, > we submit: > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of > rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, > remote participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: "In building the > Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special > needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including > migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We > shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with > disabilities." We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and > often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer > and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and > those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the > Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and > social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF's > inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be > appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a > single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other > Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which > global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere > rather than the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should > more clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into > consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and > sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and > lodging that is competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF - are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the > Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, > but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The > IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of > workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented > in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants > should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result > of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their > posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG > activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for > example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. > > Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for > key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in > order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare > consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: > >> Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic >> or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final >> final version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it? >> Sorry for being a moron. >> Rebecca >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF >> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not >> have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you >> should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and >> offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This >> voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the >> questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open >> working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the >> whole IGC. >> >> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to >> the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the >> rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Rebecca MacKinnon >> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org >> Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of >> Hong Kong >> >> UK: +44-7759-863406 >> USA: +1-617-939-3493 >> HK: +852-6334-8843 >> Mainland China: +86-13710820364 >> >> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com >> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack >> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From charityg at diplomacy.edu Fri Jul 17 15:30:28 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:30:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: <4A60C010.6020806@gmail.com> References: <4a60be05.1818d00a.5d36.ffff97ae@mx.google.com> <4A60C010.6020806@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, I have been following this slowly and with all the many thread, I got a little confused. Sorry that I haven't had much time to really comment. I have been caught up with packing, In the previous thread, I read about remote participation included in the answers to the questionnaire. I'm with the idea of some sort of "funding" for IGF participants. But I have to admit to ignorance as to how to put that in a better way so I would rely on those who can bring that up well. Those two issues on (remote participation and "funding") would be something I'd want included in the text. So after reading through this recent email you sent, I'm satisfied. Thank you to all. Great work, Ginger. Regards, Charity On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Renate! There is no reason for awkwardness at all!! The open, > informal "working group" worked to write the text. Now everyone should read > the text, and respond to the Call for Consensus. The questionnaire is going > out in your name too, so we should hear your expressed opinion. > > Best, > Ginger > > > Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > >> Hi Ginger, >> >> A very comprehensive statement, well done! Like other lurking >> participants, >> who have not contributed, I feel a bit awkward, but happy nevertheless to >> give you my consent. >> Renate >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: vendredi, 17. juillet >> 2009 17:44 >> To: Rebecca MacKinnon >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque' >> Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text >> >> Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final >> text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus. >> >> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF >> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to >> follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering >> sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering >> the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not >> consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the >> whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call >> for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. >> >> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the >> Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day >> (July 17th GMT). Thanks! >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus: >> >> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >> the Tunis Agenda? >> >> >> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically >> set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are >> contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet >> governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. >> >> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its >> way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on >> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going >> process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF >> meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is >> important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and >> seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue >> helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's >> success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real >> policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of >> success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, >> but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural >> evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on >> 'issues that require most >> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >> processes of real policy making. >> >> In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to 'facilitate >> discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting >> international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and >> 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other >> institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). >> >> IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards >> fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders >> in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and >> affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g >> of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making >> recommendations'. >> >> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >> >> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking >> with each other, and at least start to see the others' point of view, if >> not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is >> widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >> >> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed >> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >> >> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder >> dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the >> global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying >> this innovation in a relatively formal way). >> >> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to >> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >> development of the Internet. >> >> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that >> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that >> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, >> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have >> not been adequately addressed. >> >> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >> processes at the national, regional. level" similar to the IGF. As >> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish >> formal relationships with these initiatives, including >> through IGF Remote Hubs. >> >> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >> >> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >> organizations." WSIS principles also state that IG "should ensure an >> equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and >> ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into >> account multilingualism". Governments invoked these principles >> throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF >> to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >> principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has >> not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of >> its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated >> programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss >> government's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should >> be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >> >> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a >> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >> building block for such an effort. >> >> In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to >> consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and >> to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with >> the Tunis mandate. >> >> A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated >> mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give >> rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, >> allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central >> obligation of the IGF. >> >> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize >> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >> current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of >> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should >> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> >> >> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >> acted as a catalyst for change? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of >> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was >> during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the >> IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels >> that include business, government, academia and civil society working >> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >> >> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >> question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF >> on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or >> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in >> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder >> groups. >> >> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has >> your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has >> assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the >> multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any >> particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the >> IGF. >> >> The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and >> perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as >> during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to >> experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and >> many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This >> 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process >> promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance >> process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. >> >> >> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >> >> >> **Membership of the MAG** >> >> .Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder >> advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil >> society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >> experiment in global governance. >> . We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >> representation should not be at the expense of civil society >> participation. >> . When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >> with special >> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >> >> **Role and Structure of the MAG** >> >> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time >> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >> >> . One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the >> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are >> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG >> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively >> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS >> mandate. >> >> . It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups >> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >> >> . MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph >> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the >> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >> >> . IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up >> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >> >> >> **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** >> >> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of >> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with >> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >> >> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >> of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries >> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct >> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory >> consultations. >> >> >> **Special Advisors** >> >> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind >> for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors >> should be kept within a reasonable limit. >> >> >> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >> mandate, and why/why not? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for >> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to >> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to >> improve effectiveness. >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >> >> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >> Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making >> processes more participative and democratic. >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for >> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding >> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions >> effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end >> we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN >> organization in the IGF's management. >> >> >> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >> processes? >> >> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >> we submit: >> >> The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where >> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive >> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current >> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of >> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >> remote participation including transcription and archiving. >> >> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: "In building the >> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including >> migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We >> shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with >> disabilities." We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, >> rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and >> often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer >> and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, >> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of >> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and >> those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the >> Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and >> social development. >> >> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF's >> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be >> appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a >> single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other >> Internet governance >> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which >> global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere >> rather than the single element in the process. >> >> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >> more clearly >> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >> options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into >> consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and >> sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and >> advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and >> lodging that is competitive and convenient. >> >> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >> support of the IGF - are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be >> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the >> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >> >> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where >> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, >> but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The >> IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of >> workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented >> in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants >> should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result >> of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their >> posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >> >> Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for >> key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in >> order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. >> >> >> 7. Do you have any other comments? >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare >> consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic or >>> contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final final >>> version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it? >>> Sorry for being a moron. >>> Rebecca >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque >> gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF >>> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not >>> have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you >>> should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and >>> offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This >>> voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the >>> questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open >>> working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the >>> whole IGC. >>> >>> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to >>> the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the >>> rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! >>> >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Rebecca MacKinnon >>> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org >>> Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of >>> Hong Kong >>> >>> UK: +44-7759-863406 >>> USA: +1-617-939-3493 >>> HK: +852-6334-8843 >>> Mainland China: +86-13710820364 >>> >>> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com >>> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack >>> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 15:59:51 2009 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:59:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: <4A609C4D.4000601@gmail.com> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> <58762b1a0907170749p1f3138c8y5a479d3c2d969e04@mail.gmail.com> <4A609C4D.4000601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <58762b1a0907171259p639a53b3me8212be23e0d7709@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Ginger. Congratulations to everybody who worked on this document! I support it and hope that the IGF will take these recommendations on board. Best, Rebecca On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final > text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus. > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to > follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering > sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering the > input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not consist of > 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the whole > caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call for > Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the Call > for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day (July > 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > > IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus: > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going > process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF > meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is > important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and > seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue > helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's > success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real > policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of > success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, > but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural > evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on > 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and > 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other > institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders > in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g > of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making > recommendations'. > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking > with each other, and at least start to see the others’ point of view, if > not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is > widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder > dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the > global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying > this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, > particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have > not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. As > already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking > shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish > formal relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and > ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into > account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles > throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF > to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has > not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of > its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated > programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss > government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should > be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to > consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and > to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with > the Tunis mandate. > > A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated > mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give > rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, > allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central > obligation of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was > during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the > IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels > that include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF > on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any > particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the > IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and > perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as > during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to > experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and > many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance > process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > **Membership of the MAG** > > •Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > experiment in global governance. > • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups > with special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > **Role and Structure of the MAG** > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will > be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > • One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out > this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG > that is little more than a program committee will not effectively > advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS > mandate. > > • It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by > the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph > 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the > discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up > for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is > also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. > While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of > the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with > the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries > with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct > of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations. > > > **Special Advisors** > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind > for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > should be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to > be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to > improve effectiveness. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > processes more participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding > from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end > we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN > organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, > we submit: > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of > rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, > remote participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the > Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special > needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including > migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We > shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with > disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and > often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer > and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and > those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the > Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and > social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s > inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be > appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a > single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other > Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which > global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere > rather than the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should > more clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into > consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and > sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and > lodging that is competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the > Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, > but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The > IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of > workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented > in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants > should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result > of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their > posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG > activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for > example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. > > Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for > key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in > order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare > consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: > >> Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic or >> contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final final >> version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it? >> Sorry for being a moron. >> Rebecca >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque > gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF >> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not >> have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you >> should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and >> offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This >> voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the >> questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open >> working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the >> whole IGC. >> >> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to >> the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the >> rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Rebecca MacKinnon >> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org >> Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong >> Kong >> >> UK: +44-7759-863406 >> USA: +1-617-939-3493 >> HK: +852-6334-8843 >> Mainland China: +86-13710820364 >> >> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com >> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack >> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Rebecca MacKinnon Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong UK: +44-7759-863406 USA: +1-617-939-3493 HK: +852-6334-8843 Mainland China: +86-13710820364 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From babatope at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 15:59:42 2009 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:59:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: References: <4a60be05.1818d00a.5d36.ffff97ae@mx.google.com> <4A60C010.6020806@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, Kudos to the team that worked on putting together the text. I have read and herewith state my support for the final version of the text as posted. Apologies I could not be more actively involved in the process of preparing this. Best Regards On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > I have been following this slowly and with all the many thread, I got a > little confused. Sorry that I haven't had much time to really comment. I > have been caught up with packing, In the previous thread, I read about > remote participation included in the answers to the questionnaire. I'm with > the idea of some sort of "funding" for IGF participants. But I have to admit > to ignorance as to how to put that in a better way so I would rely on those > who can bring that up well. Those two issues on (remote participation and > "funding") would be something I'd want included in the text. So after > reading through this recent email you sent, I'm satisfied. Thank you to all. > > Great work, Ginger. > > Regards, > Charity > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Thanks Renate! There is no reason for awkwardness at all!! The open, >> informal "working group" worked to write the text. Now everyone should read >> the text, and respond to the Call for Consensus. The questionnaire is going >> out in your name too, so we should hear your expressed opinion. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> >> Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: >> >>> Hi Ginger, >>> >>> A very comprehensive statement, well done! Like other lurking >>> participants, >>> who have not contributed, I feel a bit awkward, but happy nevertheless to >>> give you my consent. >>> Renate >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: vendredi, 17. juillet >>> 2009 17:44 >>> To: Rebecca MacKinnon >>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque' >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text >>> >>> Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final >>> text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus. >>> >>> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF >>> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to >>> follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering >>> sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering >>> the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not >>> consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the >>> whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call >>> for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. >>> >>> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the >>> Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day >>> (July 17th GMT). Thanks! >>> >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> >>> IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus: >>> >>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in >>> the Tunis Agenda? >>> >>> >>> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically >>> set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are >>> contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet >>> governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. >>> >>> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its >>> way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on >>> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going >>> process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF >>> meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is >>> important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and >>> seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue >>> helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's >>> success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real >>> policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of >>> success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, >>> but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural >>> evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on >>> 'issues that require most >>> urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and >>> processes of real policy making. >>> >>> In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to 'facilitate >>> discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting >>> international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and >>> 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other >>> institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). >>> >>> IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards >>> fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders >>> in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and >>> affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g >>> of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making >>> recommendations'. >>> >>> IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: >>> >>> 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking >>> with each other, and at least start to see the others' point of view, if >>> not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is >>> widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and >>> policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. >>> >>> 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer >>> participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed >>> institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. >>> >>> 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder >>> dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the >>> global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying >>> this innovation in a relatively formal way). >>> >>> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public >>> policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to >>> foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and >>> development of the Internet. >>> >>> There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. >>> The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, >>> even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is >>> taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that >>> this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that >>> discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, >>> particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have >>> not been adequately addressed. >>> >>> The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder >>> processes at the national, regional. level" similar to the IGF. As >>> already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking >>> shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish >>> formal relationships with these initiatives, including >>> through IGF Remote Hubs. >>> >>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? >>> >>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be >>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >>> organizations." WSIS principles also state that IG "should ensure an >>> equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and >>> ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into >>> account multilingualism". Governments invoked these principles >>> throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF >>> to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >>> principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has >>> not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of >>> its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated >>> programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss >>> government's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should >>> be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. >>> >>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of >>> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis >>> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a >>> code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - >>> Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a >>> building block for such an effort. >>> >>> In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to >>> consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and >>> to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with >>> the Tunis mandate. >>> >>> A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated >>> mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give >>> rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, >>> allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central >>> obligation of the IGF. >>> >>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of >>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize >>> the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet >>> governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access >>> the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with >>> current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of >>> the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>> >>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of >>> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. >>> Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should >>> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has >>> it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it >>> acted as a catalyst for change? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of >>> discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed >>> that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was >>> during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the >>> IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels >>> that include business, government, academia and civil society working >>> together and exchanging ideas on various levels. >>> >>> The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the >>> question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF >>> on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or >>> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in >>> turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder >>> groups. >>> >>> In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your >>> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has >>> your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has >>> assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the >>> multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any >>> particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the >>> IGF. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and >>> perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as >>> during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to >>> experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and >>> many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This >>> 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process >>> promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance >>> process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. >>> >>> >>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for >>> it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? >>> >>> >>> **Membership of the MAG** >>> >>> .Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder >>> advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil >>> society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new >>> experiment in global governance. >>> . We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet >>> administration and the development of Internet-related technical >>> standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their >>> representation should not be at the expense of civil society >>> participation. >>> . When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure >>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups >>> with special >>> needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. >>> >>> **Role and Structure of the MAG** >>> >>> With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time >>> to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will >>> be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. >>> >>> . One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the >>> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out >>> this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the >>> effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its >>> decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are >>> especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what >>> it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG >>> that is little more than a program committee will not effectively >>> advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS >>> mandate. >>> >>> . It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups >>> (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of >>> workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for >>> managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. >>> >>> . MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should >>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant >>> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline >>> plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by >>> the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph >>> 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the >>> discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. >>> >>> . IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which >>> should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up >>> for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is >>> also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. >>> >>> >>> **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** >>> >>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a >>> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to >>> fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express >>> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. >>> While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of >>> the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with >>> the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. >>> >>> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation >>> of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries >>> with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct >>> of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory >>> consultations. >>> >>> >>> **Special Advisors** >>> >>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for >>> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as >>> mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind >>> for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors >>> should be kept within a reasonable limit. >>> >>> >>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year >>> mandate, and why/why not? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should >>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. >>> >>> Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity >>> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to >>> be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to >>> improve effectiveness. >>> >>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >>> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more >>> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >>> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >>> >>> Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global >>> Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making >>> processes more participative and democratic. >>> >>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for >>> this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding >>> from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions >>> effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end >>> we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN >>> organization in the IGF's management. >>> >>> >>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements >>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and >>> processes? >>> >>> We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, >>> we submit: >>> >>> The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where >>> the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive >>> participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current >>> operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of >>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, >>> remote participation including transcription and archiving. >>> >>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: "In building the >>> Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special >>> needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including >>> migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, >>> unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We >>> shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with >>> disabilities." We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, >>> rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and >>> often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer >>> and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, >>> those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of >>> responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and >>> those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the >>> Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and >>> social development. >>> >>> This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and >>> processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF's >>> inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current >>> practices, technology support opportunities, changed international >>> financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be >>> appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a >>> single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other >>> Internet governance >>> institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and >>> engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which >>> global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere >>> rather than the single element in the process. >>> >>> Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should >>> more clearly >>> support participation by individuals and organizations with few >>> resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing >>> options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into >>> consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and >>> sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and >>> advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and >>> lodging that is competitive and convenient. >>> >>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the >>> support of the IGF - are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, >>> in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be >>> complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the >>> Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. >>> >>> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where >>> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, >>> but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The >>> IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of >>> workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented >>> in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants >>> should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result >>> of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their >>> posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to >>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be >>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater >>> diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG >>> activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for >>> example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. >>> >>> Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for >>> key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in >>> order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. >>> >>> >>> 7. Do you have any other comments? >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat >>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text >>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research >>> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare >>> consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic >>>> or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final final >>>> version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it? >>>> Sorry for being a moron. >>>> Rebecca >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque >>> gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF >>>> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not >>>> have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you >>>> should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and >>>> offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This >>>> voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the >>>> questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open >>>> working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the >>>> whole IGC. >>>> >>>> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to >>>> the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the >>>> rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Ginger >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Rebecca MacKinnon >>>> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org >>>> Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of >>>> Hong Kong >>>> >>>> UK: +44-7759-863406 >>>> USA: +1-617-939-3493 >>>> HK: +852-6334-8843 >>>> Mainland China: +86-13710820364 >>>> >>>> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com >>> > >>>> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack >>>> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Babatope Soremi I'm totally sold out to changing my world for good.... Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007 You can't give what you don't have........ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Jul 17 16:30:32 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:30:32 +1000 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: <4A609C4D.4000601@gmail.com> Message-ID: YES from me On 18/07/09 1:44 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final > text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus. > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have > time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be > considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering > the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not > consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is > the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, > the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the > Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the > day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > > IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus: > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > the Tunis Agenda? > > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going > process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF > meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is > important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and > seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue > helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's > success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real > policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of > success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, > but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural > evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on > 'issues that require most > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > processes of real policy making. > > In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to Œfacilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and > 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other > institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). > > IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders > in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and > affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g > of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making > recommendations'. > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking > with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of view, if > not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is > widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder > dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the > global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying > this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, > particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have > not been adequately addressed. > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As > already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking > shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish > formal relationships with these initiatives, including > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and > ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into > account multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles > throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF > to, ³promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has > not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of > its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated > programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss > government¹s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should > be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > building block for such an effort. > > In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to > consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and > to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with > the Tunis mandate. > > A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated > mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give > rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, > allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central > obligation of the IGF. > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > acted as a catalyst for change? > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was > during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the > IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels > that include business, government, academia and civil society working > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF > on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder > groups. > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any > particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the > IGF. > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and > perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as > during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to > experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and > many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance > process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > **Membership of the MAG** > > €Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > experiment in global governance. > € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. > € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups > with special > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > **Role and Structure of the MAG** > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will > be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out > this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG > that is little more than a program committee will not effectively > advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS > mandate. > > € It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by > the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph > 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the > discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up > for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is > also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. > While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of > the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with > the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries > with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct > of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > consultations. > > > **Special Advisors** > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind > for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > should be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > mandate, and why/why not? > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to > be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to > improve effectiveness. > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > processes more participative and democratic. > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding > from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end > we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN > organization in the IGF's management. > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > processes? > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, > we submit: > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of > rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, > remote participation including transcription and archiving. > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the > Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special > needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including > migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We > shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with > disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and > often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer > and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and > those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the > Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and > social development. > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s > inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be > appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a > single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other > Internet governance > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which > global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere > rather than the single element in the process. > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should > more clearly > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into > consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and > sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and > lodging that is competitive and convenient. > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the > Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, > but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The > IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of > workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented > in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants > should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result > of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their > posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG > activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for > example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. > > Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for > key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in > order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare > consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: >> Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic >> or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final >> final version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it? >> Sorry for being a moron. >> Rebecca >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF >> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not >> have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you >> should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and >> offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This >> voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the >> questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open >> working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the >> whole IGC. >> >> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to >> the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the >> rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Rebecca MacKinnon >> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org >> Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of >> Hong Kong >> >> UK: +44-7759-863406 >> USA: +1-617-939-3493 >> HK: +852-6334-8843 >> Mainland China: +86-13710820364 >> >> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com >> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack >> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 16:44:01 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:44:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: References: <4A609C4D.4000601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0907171344w6ee37623k1689db8d6192f7bc@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ginger, Can you add the "Red Interamericana de Formación en Gobierno Electrónico-RIFGE /COLAM/OUI" to the list of organisations that agreed with the text? I copy José Luis Tesoro, the RIF-GE's Director. Thanks! Roxana a little sandstone... i hope it helps :) 2009/7/17 Ian Peter > YES from me > > > On 18/07/09 1:44 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > > > Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final > > text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus. > > > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have > > time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be > > considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering > > the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not > > consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is > > the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, > > the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. > > > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the > > Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the > > day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! > > > > Best, > > Ginger > > > > IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus: > > > > 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in > > the Tunis Agenda? > > > > > > The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically > > set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are > > contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet > > governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. > > > > In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its > > way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > > IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going > > process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF > > meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is > > important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and > > seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue > > helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's > > success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real > > policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of > > success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, > > but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural > > evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on > > 'issues that require most > > urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and > > processes of real policy making. > > > > In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to Œfacilitate > > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting > > international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and > > 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other > > institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). > > > > IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards > > fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders > > in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and > > affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g > > of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making > > recommendations'. > > > > IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: > > > > 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking > > with each other, and at least start to see the others¹ point of view, if > > not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is > > widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and > > policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. > > > > 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer > > participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed > > institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. > > > > 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder > > dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the > > global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying > > this innovation in a relatively formal way). > > > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public > > policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to > > foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > > development of the Internet. > > > > There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. > > The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, > > even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is > > taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that > > this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that > > discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, > > particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have > > not been adequately addressed. > > > > The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > > processes at the national, regionalŠ level" similar to the IGF. As > > already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking > > shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish > > formal relationships with these initiatives, including > > through IGF Remote Hubs. > > > > 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? > > > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes ³should be > > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > > organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an > > equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and > > ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into > > account multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles > > throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF > > to, ³promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > > principles in Internet Governance processes.² Nevertheless, the IGF has > > not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of > > its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated > > programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss > > government¹s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should > > be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. > > > > We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of > > those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis > > Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a > > code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - > > Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a > > building block for such an effort. > > > > In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to > > consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and > > to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with > > the Tunis mandate. > > > > A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated > > mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give > > rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, > > allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central > > obligation of the IGF. > > > > The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of > > openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize > > the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > > current debates regarding an ³open Internet², and relevant aspects of > > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > > > The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of > > the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > > Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should > > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > > > > > 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has > > it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it > > acted as a catalyst for change? > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of > > discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed > > that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was > > during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the > > IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels > > that include business, government, academia and civil society working > > together and exchanging ideas on various levels. > > > > The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the > > question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF > > on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or > > organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in > > turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder > > groups. > > > > In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your > > involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has > > your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has > > assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the > > multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any > > particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the > > IGF. > > > > The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and > > perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as > > during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to > > experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and > > many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This > > 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process > > promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance > > process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. > > > > > > 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for > > it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > > (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? > > > > > > **Membership of the MAG** > > > > €Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder > > advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil > > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > > experiment in global governance. > > € We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > > administration and the development of Internet-related technical > > standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their > > representation should not be at the expense of civil society > participation. > > € When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure > > diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups > > with special > > needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. > > > > **Role and Structure of the MAG** > > > > With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time > > to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will > > be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. > > > > € One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the > > annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out > > this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the > > effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its > > decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are > > especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what > > it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG > > that is little more than a program committee will not effectively > > advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS > > mandate. > > > > € It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups > > (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of > > workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for > > managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. > > > > € MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should > > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant > > parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline > > plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by > > the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph > > 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the > > discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. > > > > € IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which > > should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up > > for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is > > also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. > > > > > > **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** > > > > The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a > > UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to > > fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express > > our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. > > While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of > > the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with > > the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. > > > > In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation > > of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries > > with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct > > of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory > > consultations. > > > > > > **Special Advisors** > > > > The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for > > their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as > > mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind > > for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors > > should be kept within a reasonable limit. > > > > > > 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year > > mandate, and why/why not? > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should > > continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for > > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity > > building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to > > be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to > > improve effectiveness. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more > > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global > > Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making > > processes more participative and democratic. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for > > this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding > > from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions > > effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end > > we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN > > organization in the IGF's management. > > > > > > 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements > > would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and > > processes? > > > > We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, > > we submit: > > > > The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where > > the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive > > participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current > > operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of > > rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, > > remote participation including transcription and archiving. > > > > And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ²In building the > > Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special > > needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including > > migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, > > unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We > > shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with > > disabilities.² We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, > > rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and > > often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer > > and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, > > those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of > > responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and > > those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the > > Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and > > social development. > > > > This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and > > processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF¹s > > inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current > > practices, technology support opportunities, changed international > > financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be > > appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a > > single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other > > Internet governance > > institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and > > engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which > > global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere > > rather than the single element in the process. > > > > Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should > > more clearly > > support participation by individuals and organizations with few > > resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing > > options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into > > consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and > > sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and > > advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and > > lodging that is competitive and convenient. > > > > The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the > > support of the IGF ­ are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, > > in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be > > complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the > > Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. > > > > Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where > > appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, > > but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The > > IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of > > workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented > > in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants > > should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result > > of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their > > posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to > > provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be > > used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater > > diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG > > activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for > > example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. > > > > Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for > > key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in > > order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. > > > > > > 7. Do you have any other comments? > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat > > introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text > > transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research > > resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare > > consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: > >> Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic > >> or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final > >> final version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send > it? > >> Sorry for being a moron. > >> Rebecca > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque >> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > >> questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not > >> have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you > >> should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for > Consensus. > >> > >> The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and > >> offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This > >> voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the > >> questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open > >> working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the > >> whole IGC. > >> > >> Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to > >> the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the > >> rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! > >> > >> Best, > >> Ginger > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Rebecca MacKinnon > >> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > >> Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of > >> Hong Kong > >> > >> UK: +44-7759-863406 > >> USA: +1-617-939-3493 > >> HK: +852-6334-8843 > >> Mainland China: +86-13710820364 > >> > >> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > > >> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > >> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anriette at apc.org Fri Jul 17 16:52:17 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:52:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process In-Reply-To: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1247863937.3958.2806.camel@anriette-laptop> Happy to support. Thanks for the hard work everyone. Anriette On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 10:09 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have > time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be > considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering > the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not > consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is > the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, > the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the > Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the > day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Jul 17 17:14:49 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:14:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process In-Reply-To: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40907171414v329e1d91o628b67348c979e75@mail.gmail.com> Some excellent work was done by the drafters and those who used the opportunity to seek clarifications. The statement has my support. Congratulations. Carlton Samuels On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to > follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering > sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering the > input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not consist of > 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the whole > caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call for > Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the Call > for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day (July > 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From wcurrie at apc.org Fri Jul 17 17:43:49 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:43:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process In-Reply-To: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A60F095.1080903@apc.org> Yes Willie Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have > time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should > be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and > offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice > does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the > questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open > working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the > whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the > Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the > day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From dave at isoc-mu.org Fri Jul 17 17:53:30 2009 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:53:30 +0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text In-Reply-To: <58762b1a0907171259p639a53b3me8212be23e0d7709@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> <58762b1a0907170749p1f3138c8y5a479d3c2d969e04@mail.gmail.com> <4A609C4D.4000601@gmail.com> <58762b1a0907171259p639a53b3me8212be23e0d7709@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks and congratulations to the team who have worked on the document I do support as well Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal ISOC Mauritius Chair _____ From: Rebecca MacKinnon [mailto:rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com] Sent: 18 July 2009 00:00 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text Thanks Ginger. Congratulations to everybody who worked on this document! I support it and hope that the IGF will take these recommendations on board. Best, Rebecca On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus. Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! Best, Ginger IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus: 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to 'facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others' point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones. 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional. level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs. 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." WSIS principles also state that IG "should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism". Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with the Tunis mandate. A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF. The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that many participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? **Membership of the MAG** .Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. . We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. . When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with special needs or interests in the context of Internet Governance. **Role and Structure of the MAG** With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. . One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. . It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. . MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. . IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. **Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively. In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. **Special Advisors** The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit. 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management. 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: "In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities." We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF's inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF - are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading. The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender. Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to increase participation and feedback from stakeholders. 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final final version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it? Sorry for being a moron. Rebecca On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: Hi everyone, Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- Rebecca MacKinnon Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong UK: +44-7759-863406 USA: +1-617-939-3493 HK: +852-6334-8843 Mainland China: +86-13710820364 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- Rebecca MacKinnon Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong UK: +44-7759-863406 USA: +1-617-939-3493 HK: +852-6334-8843 Mainland China: +86-13710820364 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 17 22:22:07 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:52:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process In-Reply-To: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A6131CF.9070504@itforchange.net> Yes. Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have > time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should > be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and > offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice > does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the > questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open > working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the > whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the > Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the > day (July 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 22:35:43 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:35:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process In-Reply-To: <4A6131CF.9070504@itforchange.net> References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> <4A6131CF.9070504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I am a very new new person, but I'm impressed by the patient thorough negotiation, and the quality of the finished document. For what it's worth you have my vote Deirdre 2009/7/17 Parminder : > Yes. > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF > questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have time to > follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be considering > sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering the > input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not consist of > 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is the whole > caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, the Call for > Consensus is directed to the whole IGC. > > Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the Call > for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the day (July > 17th GMT). Thanks! > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 23:03:46 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:03:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process In-Reply-To: References: <4A608D2E.8080404@gmail.com> <4A6131CF.9070504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Congratulations for the work developed. I have followed the discussions carefully and fully support the statement. Best regards Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 23:44:50 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:14:50 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire to the IGF Secretariat now submitted Message-ID: <4A614532.9000409@gmail.com> Thanks once again to everyone for their work on our questionnaire submission to the IGF Secretariat. I would have liked to see more responses to the Call for Consensus, but as we were well past the deadline, and there were no negative responses, I have submitted our questionnaire to the IGF2009 website and the IGF Secretariat. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ 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 From direction at communautique.qc.ca Sat Jul 18 00:11:19 2009 From: direction at communautique.qc.ca (direction at communautique.qc.ca) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire to the IGF In-Reply-To: <4A614532.9000409@gmail.com> References: <4A614532.9000409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3365.76.69.194.205.1247890279.squirrel@mail.communautique.qc.ca> Je souhaite ajouter ma voix à ces remerciements à tous. Monique > Thanks once again to everyone for their work on our questionnaire > submission to the IGF Secretariat. I would have liked to see more > responses to the Call for Consensus, but as we were well past the > deadline, and there were no negative responses, I have submitted our > questionnaire to the IGF2009 website and the IGF Secretariat. > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org Sat Jul 18 03:22:03 2009 From: francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Ullmann) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:22:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] consensus IGC/IGF final text Message-ID: <1247901723-592278348eaf301e42c116dfcbb55a5d@ingenieursdumonde.org> I would like to express my gratitude to the team so well involved in this process which could be a wonderful example. Congratulations for the work developed. I have followed the discussions carefully and fully support the statement. Best regards Francois Ullmann (Ph.D) president of www.ingenieursdumonde.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Jul 18 03:28:15 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:28:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire to the IGF Secretariat In-Reply-To: <4A614532.9000409@gmail.com> References: <4A614532.9000409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <33237494.278055.1247902095922.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d29> Dear Ginger and all First, my sincere congratulations for the hard work done by yourself for considering such different opinions and integrating them as far as they were supported by list members. I particularly appreciated Parminder's comments and proposals for wording, because i.a. he continuously raised the issue of the special needs and therefore for a special effort in all domains with special attention to financing the participation of DC's and LDC's organisations (grass-root included !). I support the IGC statement, although there are some missings or some weaknesses in the doscument in my opinion. What I miss particularly are infrastructure and network architecture issues that govern at least the IP packet flows (as such it pertains to the "Internet governance" domain), with a special focus and attention to Africa and -at some extent- to Latin America and Southern Asia-Oceania. The management -that implies also the control- of those flows is another "governance issue" that wasn't sufficiently dealed with. Having said that I'm sure I'll get some critical comments from the "Internet community" (?). So please accept my remarks as coming from a telecoms engineer ... Nobody is perfect ! Another point that is bothering me is the role of multilateralism related to the "global public good" that the Internet is for the large majority of NGOs. In this area the role of the ITU should be more clarified, even if this agency is questionable in a lot of its beheaviour and acting. Multistakerholderism isn't a universal recipe if the CS has no means for being able to be an "equal partner" with the private sector and their lobbies ! These are just some personal concerns I'd like to express before beeing "forced to silence" for medical reasons at least for one month from up the 10th of August. Once again I thank Ginger for the work done. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 18/07/09 05:48 > De : "Ginger Paque" > A : "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire to the IGF Secretariat now submitted > > > Thanks once again to everyone for their work on our questionnaire > submission to the IGF Secretariat. I would have liked to see more > responses to the Call for Consensus, but as we were well past the > deadline, and there were no negative responses, I have submitted our > questionnaire to the IGF2009 website and the IGF Secretariat. > > Best, > Ginger > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From graciela at rits.org.br Sat Jul 18 09:43:02 2009 From: graciela at rits.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:43:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Programa_de_Becas_Reuni=F3n_Regional?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Preparatoria_del_FGI/Internet_Governance_Forum_(IGF)_Fina?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ncial_Assistance_Program_/_Programa_de_Bolsas_Reuni=E3o_Re?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?gional_Preparatoria_do_FGI_?= Message-ID: <4A61D166.9030805@rits.org.br> Por favor veja Português abaixo Please, see English below -------------------------------------------------- Apertura de solicitudes para Programa de Becas Reunión Regional Preparatoria del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI). LACNIC, APC, RITS y NUPEF, ofrecerán un número limitado de becas de asistencia financiera dirigidas a miembros de la comunidad Internet de Latinoamérica y Caribe que estén interesados en asistir a la Reunión Regional Preparatoria del FGI. Dicha reunión se realizará en Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, del 11 al 13 de agosto de 2009, en el Hotel Novo Mundo. Las solicitudes para recibir estas becas pueden ser presentadas hasta el 23 de julio de 2009 inclusive. Información detallada sobre el Programa de Becas, requisitos y detalles para presentar la solicitud se encuentran disponibles en la página web del evento: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/espanol/ Por consultas acerca del Programa, contactarse a: simone at nupef.org.br -------------------------------------------------- Abertura de solicitações para Programa de Bolsas Reunião Regional Preparatoria do Fórum de Governança da Internet (FGI) LACNIC, APC, RITS e NUPEF estarão oferecendo bolsas de financiamento dirigidas a membros da comunidade de Internet da América Latina e Caribe que estejam interessados em assistir à Reunião de Consulta de LACNIC e à Reunião Regional Preparatória do FGI, que serão realizadas no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, de 11 a 13 de Agosto, 2009, no Hotel Novo Mundo. As solicitações para receber estas bolsas podem ser apresentadas até o dia 23 de Julho de 2009. Informações detalhadas sobre o Programa de bolsas, requisitos e detalhes para apresentar a solicitação se encontram disponíveis na página do evento: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/ Para consultas sobre o Programa, contatar: simone at nupef.org.br -------------------------------------------------- Regional Preparatory Meeting of Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Financial Assistance Program - Open Call for applications LACNIC, APC, RITS and NUPEF will be offering a limited number of financial grants to members of the Internet community of Latin America and the Caribbean interested in attending the Regional Preparatory Meeting of IGF, which will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from August 11th to13th, 2009, at Novo Mundo Hotel. In order to benefit from the grants, the applications must be submitted by July 23th, 2009. Detailed information about the Financial Assistance Program, requirements and details to submit the application are available from the meeting website at: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/english/ For questions about the Program you may contact: simone at nupef.org.br ____________________________________________________________ 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 From javier at funredes.org Sat Jul 18 15:21:12 2009 From: javier at funredes.org (Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pinz=F3n?=) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:21:12 -0400 (AST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement-questionnaire to the IGF In-Reply-To: <4A614532.9000409@gmail.com> References: <4A614532.9000409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4454.74.72.177.7.1247944872.squirrel@funredes.org> > I would have liked to see more > responses to the Call for Consensus, Ginger and all people who works in the document: great work. Thanks. I support it, aware that deadline to express such support was until yesterday. Best, Javier -- http://funredes.org/javier ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Sun Jul 19 08:01:57 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:01:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sulzberger slams ICANN the U.S. government contractor for domain names Message-ID: <874c02a20907190501q1e9181e9q778c00185dd788d2@mail.gmail.com> Great comments from Jay http://bit.ly/hyoIu -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jul 19 08:22:41 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:22:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <61a136f40907151439k58cb65eai54cb7922a0f3c5c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> <4A5DC2BC.4060906@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <61a136f40907151439k58cb65eai54cb7922a0f3c5c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007601ca086b$ae504720$0af0d560$@com.br> Carlton I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be naïve on this. Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that. Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage. The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even mention Haiti. Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future. History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! Carlton Samuels 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different. Wolfgang http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jul 19 08:56:40 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:56:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 In-Reply-To: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> References: <4A5E58D5.2030403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00b401ca0870$a05f25f0$e11d71d0$@com.br> Opinions below in red italic Best to all Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:32 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter; Parminder; Jeanette Hofmann; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; William Drake Subject: [governance] IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15 Hello, all... We are not going to make the deadline of midnight GMT today, but I have asked the Secretariat for an extension, and Markus Kummer has said we may have a short extension. Current proposed text follows at the bottom with the controversial sections marked with **[ ] Please opine as soon as possible, trying to give concrete options or suggestions for solutions if you can. I think that Natasha's, Roxana's and Jean-Louis's concerns have already been dealt with in the text or below, please re-state if not... sorry if I missed something or misinterpreted. Please let me know. So... correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that there are four areas still under discussion. There may be other points that I did not catch. 1) Q1: **[In this connection, IGF IS STILL TO ACHIEVE ANY CLEAR SUCCESS in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). ]** Could we say: (I think this is somewhat stronger than Ian's: IGF "may need to extend its efforts in") **[In this connection, the IGF MUST EXTEND ITS EFFORTS in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). ]**[Vanda Scartezini] I prefer this statement.IGF must is the strength we need. AND can everyone accept this wording, or suggest another? **[IGF has also not been able to make any SIGNIFICANT progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. 2) Q2 the issue of rights, particularly: **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** Note that the at question 2, the questionnaire itself http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Fo rmalConsult032009) has a link to the WSIS declaration of principles http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 articles of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I agree with Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs?[Vanda Scartezini] agree 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on Internet public policy issues.] or change to Bill's suggestion of: "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's unique character."[Vanda Scartezini] adopting recommendation will be possible only at local level, the reason I have suggested we have formal & supported regional IGF meetings. If we just continue with the worldwide one it will be hard to achieve recommendations that will fit all. 4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options-- (Q6 also) A) that we use this shortened version: The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender.[Vanda Scartezini] this short one is clear. B) or this version, with "unconditional" changed to "that are free from censorship or restrictions on content": The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments, but it is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We mention in particular: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities need to be improved availability of various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective. With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations and the United Nations THAT ARE FREE FROM CENSORSHIP OR RESTRICTIONS ON CONTENT. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need). Or C: 'funds with no explicit or hidden undue conditionalities' for that qualification. 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda? The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area. In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making. **[In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 c). ]** **[IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'. ] IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas: 1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least start to see the others' point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and policy models beyond exclusively statist ones.[Vanda Scartezini] agree 2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena. 3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way).[Vanda Scartezini] very few in this area, reason I have suggested regional formal IGF meetings ( we are just a few people around the world dealing with this). We need much more involvement. Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed. The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional. level" similar to the IGF. As already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF Remote Hubs.[Vanda Scartezini] AGREE! 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles? The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." WSIS principles also state that IG "should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism". Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions.[Vanda Scartezini] Agree We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a building block for such an effort. .[Vanda Scartezini] Agree **[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]** The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. .[Vanda Scartezini] Agree The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change? The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels that include business, government, academia and civil society working together and exchanging ideas on various levels. The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder groups. In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the IGF.[Vanda Scartezini] this paragraph is very good The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact. 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? ****Membership of the MAG** .Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.[Vanda Scartezini] agree . We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation. . When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups with specialneeds or interests in the context of Internet Governance.[Vanda Scartezini] agree ****Role and Structure of the MAG** With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform. . One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG that is little more than a program committee will not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. . It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively. . MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010. . IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda. ****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation** The United Nations needs to recognize that the IGF is the outcome of a UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with the resources it needs to perform its role effectively.[Vanda Scartezini] right In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations. ****Special Advisors and Chair** The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors should be kept within a reasonable limit.[Vanda Scartezini] OK 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not? The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to improve effectiveness. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN organization in the IGF's management.[Vanda Scartezini] agree 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes? We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, we submit: The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation including transcription and archiving. And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: "In building the Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities." We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and social development. This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF's inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current practices, technology support opportunities, changed international financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process. Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should more clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with few resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and lodging that is competitive and convenient. The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the support of the IGF - are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting. [Vanda Scartezini] till here I am in full agreement with the point 6 response. **[Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.] **[The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender.][Vanda Scartezini] ( here this statement sound better than above) 7. Do you have any other comments? The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.[Vanda Scartezini] good one. ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 09:10:12 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:40:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <007601ca086b$ae504720$0af0d560$@com.br> References: <84C90146D2C741D0967E11729B149E12@userPC> <4A5CAA7C.9080902@gmail.com> <5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch> <4A5DB80F.4060005@itforchange.net> <4A5DC2BC.4060906@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <61a136f40907151439k58cb65eai54cb7922a0f3c5c9@mail.gmail.com> <007601ca086b$ae504720$0af0d560$@com.br> Message-ID: Hello All, President James Monroe decreed in 1823 that any attempt to extend foreign political systems onto U.S. soil would be considered an act of aggression requiring U.S. intervention. This was essentially for national defense. Mary Ann Davidson proposed to invoke the Doctrine" to put the world on notice that the *US has cyberturf,* and that we will defend our turf" It would be a distortion of this doctrine, if quoted to propose policies that would amount to no less than an US aggression of a space that it common to the whole world. What is proposed is the opposite of Monroe Doctrine in that sense. Why would Oracle say this? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz 2009/7/19 Vanda Scartezini > Carlton > > I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be > naïve on this. > > > > *Vanda Scartezini* > > *POLO Consultores Associados* > > *& IT Trend* > > *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8* > > *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.* > > *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253* > > *Mob + 5511 8181.1464*** > > > > *From:* carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > > > > Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire can > attest to that. > > Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And while we > read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in > the space as merely collateral damage. > > The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either > cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign > explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of > the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the > latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered > "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral > extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, > mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never > recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly > does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central > America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even > mention Haiti. > > Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre > ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we > say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and > its impact on the future. > > History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! > > Carlton Samuels > > 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she > proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended > version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. > > If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the > contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, > that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, > what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the > diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look > rather different. > > Wolfgang > > http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 20 01:02:15 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Message-ID: <936870.16786.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am always amuzed at students of history placing modern day values and societal norms over their lens while gaining perspective of historical stuff. As though we can somehow empathetically understand the dynamics of a given place in time by applying our current anthropological bias. Then in order to come up with fuel for a given contention we apply liberally the damaging effects of a policy that was correct at the time of inception but through lack of action remained passed its' intended lifespan and caused unintended debilitary effects.     ICANN today can not be viewed through the visionary glasses of Jon Postel as it exists today. It must be viewed through the corrupt lens of current reality. Massive multinational conspiratorial Corporations now run the net, not DARPA style engineers with ten pound spectacles and slide rulers. We should not look to Countries to redefine the roles and responsibilities of netizens and carpetbaggers but rather to the driving forces of international monetary schemes.   I think using the same models of testing historic events we will look back on this "consensual" document that was just produced and judge it harshly, not due to its' genius but due to the lack of participatory validity. --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Vanda Scartezini wrote: From: Vanda Scartezini Subject: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Carlton Samuels'" , "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 12:22 PM Carlton  I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be naïve on this.    Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados &  IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464   From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?   Um, see, history matters!  Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that. Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson.  And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage. The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance.  I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine.   I won't even mention Haiti.   Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future. History is not bunk.  And culture is a helluva thing! Carlton Samuels 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different. Wolfgang http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ ____________________________________________________________ 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   -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jul 20 04:18:36 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:18:36 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? References: <936870.16786.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks for the start of the discussion aound the "Cyber Monrioe Doctrin". Here is another point which needs obviously more debate: In a meeting we had early June 2009 in Bejing, China Vice-Minister of ther Ministry for Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) declared very directly that the "securtiy and stability is priority Nunmber One for the exploding Chinese Internet Industry". China sees its own turf in Cyberspace to protect its country and interests. Russias President Medweded told the 3000 participants of the Annual Russia Internet Forum near Moscow recently that Cybersecurity is very high on the agenda of Russia Foreign Policy. Before Obama went to Moscow, the NYT/International Herald Tribune reported on its frontpage (June 27, 2009) "US and Russia split over cyberperil". The article says: "Both nations agree that cyberspacve is an emerging battleground. The United States is preparing to address the subject when President Obama visits Russia in July and at the General Assembly of the UN in November, according to a senior State Deparment official. But there the agreement end. Russia favours an internaitonal treaty along the lines of those negotiated for chemical weapons, and has pushed for that approach at a series of meetings this yeaer and in public statements by hig ranking officials. The United States argues that a treaty is unnecessary. It instead advocates improved cooperation among international law enforcement groups". When Obama was in Moscow the issue of "cybersecurity" was not raised in public, neither in the press conference nor in Obamas speech at the "New Economy School". Space for speculation? At least there are three good questions if you link this to Ms. Davidson doctrione proposal: Who has a turf in cyberspace? What is mine and what is yours in cyberspace? And how to manage the cybercommons? What do we need? Enhanced cooperation? Enhanced IGF? Enhanced G 20? First priority for the moment should be transparency in a bottom up policy developoment process, if there is a PDP underway. No need for new closed doors in an open cyberspace. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Mo 20.07.2009 07:02 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda Scartezini; Carlton Samuels; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? I am always amuzed at students of history placing modern day values and societal norms over their lens while gaining perspective of historical stuff. As though we can somehow empathetically understand the dynamics of a given place in time by applying our current anthropological bias. Then in order to come up with fuel for a given contention we apply liberally the damaging effects of a policy that was correct at the time of inception but through lack of action remained passed its' intended lifespan and caused unintended debilitary effects. ICANN today can not be viewed through the visionary glasses of Jon Postel as it exists today. It must be viewed through the corrupt lens of current reality. Massive multinational conspiratorial Corporations now run the net, not DARPA style engineers with ten pound spectacles and slide rulers. We should not look to Countries to redefine the roles and responsibilities of netizens and carpetbaggers but rather to the driving forces of international monetary schemes. I think using the same models of testing historic events we will look back on this "consensual" document that was just produced and judge it harshly, not due to its' genius but due to the lack of participatory validity. --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Vanda Scartezini wrote: From: Vanda Scartezini Subject: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Carlton Samuels'" , "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 12:22 PM Carlton I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be naïve on this. Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that. Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage. The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even mention Haiti. Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future. History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! Carlton Samuels 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different. Wolfgang http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ ____________________________________________________________ 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Jul 20 09:23:06 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: 2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719335@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de Message-ID: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Balkanization Balkanisierung Balcanización Balkanisation Balcanització Balcaneiddio Balkanisasyon Балканизация بلقنة 발칸화 Balcanizzazione Balkanisering Bałkanizacja Balcanizare Балканизация Балканизација Balkanisointi Balkanisering Балканізація 巴尔干化 ... et.al. Everyone has a name for this, BALKANIZATION. Got It!____________________________________________________________ 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 From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Mon Jul 20 10:50:27 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:50:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <936870.16786.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <61a136f40907200750i59492d6cj5ae37de98d3cce38@mail.gmail.com> The role of that the interests of the "security state" would play in defining Internet governance was always apparent to me. And when it makes the NYT in plain language, it is past speculation. For some of us, the Internet represents nothing less that the last best vehicle for social, economic and political development. I agree with you Wolfgang on the priority of the bottom-up policy development process. It has the best prospect to give everyone and all interests - all peoples - a chance to be heard. This is the policy perspective that commands my unwavering support. Carlton Samuels 2009/7/20 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Thanks for the start of the discussion aound the "Cyber Monrioe Doctrin". > Here is another point which needs obviously more debate: > > In a meeting we had early June 2009 in Bejing, China Vice-Minister of ther > Ministry for Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) declared very > directly that the "securtiy and stability is priority Nunmber One for the > exploding Chinese Internet Industry". China sees its own turf in Cyberspace > to protect its country and interests. > > Russias President Medweded told the 3000 participants of the Annual Russia > Internet Forum near Moscow recently that Cybersecurity is very high on the > agenda of Russia Foreign Policy. > > Before Obama went to Moscow, the NYT/International Herald Tribune reported > on its frontpage (June 27, 2009) "US and Russia split over cyberperil". The > article says: "Both nations agree that cyberspacve is an emerging > battleground. The United States is preparing to address the subject when > President Obama visits Russia in July and at the General Assembly of the UN > in November, according to a senior State Deparment official. But there the > agreement end. Russia favours an internaitonal treaty along the lines of > those negotiated for chemical weapons, and has pushed for that approach at a > series of meetings this yeaer and in public statements by hig ranking > officials. The United States argues that a treaty is unnecessary. It instead > advocates improved cooperation among international law enforcement groups". > > When Obama was in Moscow the issue of "cybersecurity" was not raised in > public, neither in the press conference nor in Obamas speech at the "New > Economy School". > > Space for speculation? At least there are three good questions if you link > this to Ms. Davidson doctrione proposal: Who has a turf in cyberspace? What > is mine and what is yours in cyberspace? And how to manage the cybercommons? > > What do we need? Enhanced cooperation? Enhanced IGF? Enhanced G 20? First > priority for the moment should be transparency in a bottom up policy > developoment process, if there is a PDP underway. No need for new closed > doors in an open cyberspace. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] > Gesendet: Mo 20.07.2009 07:02 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda Scartezini; Carlton Samuels; > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > > > I am always amuzed at students of history placing modern day values and > societal norms over their lens while gaining perspective of historical > stuff. As though we can somehow empathetically understand the dynamics of a > given place in time by applying our current anthropological bias. Then in > order to come up with fuel for a given contention we apply liberally the > damaging effects of a policy that was correct at the time of inception but > through lack of action remained passed its' intended lifespan and caused > unintended debilitary effects. > > ICANN today can not be viewed through the visionary glasses of Jon Postel > as it exists today. It must be viewed through the corrupt lens of current > reality. Massive multinational conspiratorial Corporations now run the net, > not DARPA style engineers with ten pound spectacles and slide rulers. We > should not look to Countries to redefine the roles and responsibilities of > netizens and carpetbaggers but rather to the driving forces of international > monetary schemes. > > I think using the same models of testing historic events we will look back > on this "consensual" document that was just produced and judge it harshly, > not due to its' genius but due to the lack of participatory validity. > > --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > > > > From: Vanda Scartezini > Subject: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Carlton Samuels'" < > carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 12:22 PM > > > > Carlton > > I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not > be naïve on this. > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > POLO Consultores Associados > > & IT Trend > > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 > > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. > > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 > > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 > > > > From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] > On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > > > > Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire > can attest to that. > > Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And > while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other > actors in the space as merely collateral damage. > > The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either > cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign > explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of > the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the > latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered > "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral > extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, > mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never > recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly > does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central > America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even > mention Haiti. > > Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre > ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we > say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and > its impact on the future. > > History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! > > Carlton Samuels > > 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > > > Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, > where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an > extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing > recently. > > If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the > contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, > that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, > what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the > diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look > rather different. > > Wolfgang > > http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:07:59 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:37:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <936870.16786.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello Wolfgang Kelinwahter and All, 2009/7/20 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Thanks for the start of the discussion aound the "Cyber Monrioe Doctrin". > Here is another point which needs obviously more debate: > > In a meeting we had early June 2009 in Bejing, China Vice-Minister of ther > Ministry for Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) declared very > directly that the "securtiy and stability is priority Nunmber One for the > exploding Chinese Internet Industry". China sees its own turf in Cyberspace > to protect its country and interests. > > Russias President Medweded told the 3000 participants of the Annual Russia > Internet Forum near Moscow recently that Cybersecurity is very high on the > agenda of Russia Foreign Policy. > > Before Obama went to Moscow, the NYT/International Herald Tribune reported > on its frontpage (June 27, 2009) "US and Russia split over cyberperil". Not merely US and Russia, but US, Russia, Europe, China and the rest of the World split over issues such as this related to the Internet. China and Russia are vocal in their opposition so their differences are noticeable. > The article says: "Both nations agree that cyberspacve is an emerging > battleground. The United States is preparing to address the subject when > President Obama visits Russia in July and at the General Assembly of the UN > in November, according to a senior State Deparment official. But there the > agreement end. Russia favours an internaitonal treaty along the lines of > those negotiated for chemical weapons, and has pushed for that approach at a > series of meetings this yeaer and in public statements by hig ranking > officials. The United States argues that a treaty is unnecessary. It instead > advocates improved cooperation among international law enforcement groups". > > When Obama was in Moscow the issue of "cybersecurity" was not raised in > public, neither in the press conference nor in Obamas speech at the "New > Economy School". > > Space for speculation? At least there are three good questions if you link > this to Ms. Davidson doctrione proposal: Who has a turf in cyberspace? What > is mine and what is yours in cyberspace? And how to manage the cybercommons? > > What do we need? Enhanced cooperation? Enhanced IGF? Enhanced G 20? For a balance between Governments as a Stakeholder group, European Commissioner Reding's proposal of a G-12 for Internet Governance is an excellent idea to begin with. A mutli-stakeholder discussion could build further on that to give shape to this as a mutli-stakeholder Group of 36 or 48 ? An enhanced MAG-like structure with the powers of oversight? > First priority for the moment should be transparency in a bottom up policy > developoment process, if there is a PDP underway. Could happen. I feel that the Obama Administration at the Top level is very receptive to the idea of inclusion. No need for new closed doors in an open cyberspace. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] > Gesendet: Mo 20.07.2009 07:02 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda Scartezini; Carlton Samuels; > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > > > I am always amuzed at students of history placing modern day values and > societal norms over their lens while gaining perspective of historical > stuff. As though we can somehow empathetically understand the dynamics of a > given place in time by applying our current anthropological bias. Then in > order to come up with fuel for a given contention we apply liberally the > damaging effects of a policy that was correct at the time of inception but > through lack of action remained passed its' intended lifespan and caused > unintended debilitary effects. > > ICANN today can not be viewed through the visionary glasses of Jon Postel > as it exists today. It must be viewed through the corrupt lens of current > reality. Massive multinational conspiratorial Corporations now run the net, > not DARPA style engineers with ten pound spectacles and slide rulers. We > should not look to Countries to redefine the roles and responsibilities of > netizens and carpetbaggers but rather to the driving forces of international > monetary schemes. > > I think using the same models of testing historic events we will look back > on this "consensual" document that was just produced and judge it harshly, > not due to its' genius but due to the lack of participatory validity. > > --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > > > > From: Vanda Scartezini > Subject: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Carlton Samuels'" < > carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>, "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 12:22 PM > > > > Carlton > > I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not > be naïve on this. > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > POLO Consultores Associados > > & IT Trend > > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 > > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. > > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 > > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 > > > > From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] > On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > > > > Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire > can attest to that. > > Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And > while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other > actors in the space as merely collateral damage. > > The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either > cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign > explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of > the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the > latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered > "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral > extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, > mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never > recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly > does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central > America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even > mention Haiti. > > Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre > ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we > say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and > its impact on the future. > > History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! > > Carlton Samuels > > 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > > > Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, > where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an > extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing > recently. > > If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the > contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, > that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, > what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the > diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look > rather different. > > Wolfgang > > http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org < > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 20 13:31:01 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:31:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Message-ID: <617495.27546.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I also thank whoever for putting this concept on the table. For me it is the meat and the draft whatever the potatoes -- all meals are better with both.   I am seeing a blurring of lines when we speak of two distinct concepts;   1. Governance by the netizen 2. Governance between governments   --- On Mon, 7/20/09, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: AW: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 8:18 AM Thanks for the start of the discussion aound the "Cyber Monrioe Doctrin". Here is another point which needs obviously more debate: In a meeting we had early June 2009 in Bejing, China Vice-Minister of ther Ministry for Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) declared very directly that the "securtiy and stability is priority Nunmber One for the exploding Chinese Internet Industry". China sees its own turf in Cyberspace to protect its country and interests. Russias President Medweded told the 3000 participants of the Annual Russia Internet Forum near Moscow recently that Cybersecurity is very high on the agenda of Russia Foreign Policy. Before Obama went to Moscow, the NYT/International Herald Tribune reported on its frontpage (June 27, 2009) "US and Russia split over cyberperil". The article says: "Both nations agree that cyberspacve is an emerging battleground. The United States is preparing to address the subject when President Obama visits Russia in July and at the General Assembly of the UN in November, according to a senior State Deparment official. But there the agreement end. Russia favours an internaitonal treaty along the lines of those negotiated for chemical weapons, and has pushed for that approach at a series of meetings this yeaer and in public statements by hig ranking officials. The United States argues that a treaty is unnecessary. It instead advocates improved cooperation among international law enforcement groups". When Obama was in Moscow the issue of "cybersecurity" was  not raised in public, neither in the press conference nor in Obamas speech at the "New Economy School".      Space for speculation? At least there are three good questions if you link this to Ms. Davidson doctrione proposal: Who has a turf in cyberspace? What is mine and what is yours in cyberspace? And how to manage the cybercommons? What do we need? Enhanced cooperation? Enhanced IGF? Enhanced G 20? First priority for the moment should be transparency in a bottom up policy developoment process, if there is a PDP underway. No need for new closed doors in an open cyberspace.    Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Mo 20.07.2009 07:02 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda Scartezini; Carlton Samuels; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? I am always amuzed at students of history placing modern day values and societal norms over their lens while gaining perspective of historical stuff. As though we can somehow empathetically understand the dynamics of a given place in time by applying our current anthropological bias. Then in order to come up with fuel for a given contention we apply liberally the damaging effects of a policy that was correct at the time of inception but through lack of action remained passed its' intended lifespan and caused unintended debilitary effects. ICANN today can not be viewed through the visionary glasses of Jon Postel as it exists today. It must be viewed through the corrupt lens of current reality. Massive multinational conspiratorial Corporations now run the net, not DARPA style engineers with ten pound spectacles and slide rulers. We should not look to Countries to redefine the roles and responsibilities of netizens and carpetbaggers but rather to the driving forces of international monetary schemes. I think using the same models of testing historic events we will look back on this "consensual" document that was just produced and judge it harshly, not due to its' genius but due to the lack of participatory validity. --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Vanda Scartezini wrote:     From: Vanda Scartezini     Subject: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Carlton Samuels'" , "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'"     Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 12:22 PM             Carlton      I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be naïve on this.          Vanda Scartezini     POLO Consultores Associados     &  IT Trend     Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8     01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.     Fone + 55 11 3266.6253     Mob + 5511 8181.1464         From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels     Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"     Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?         Um, see, history matters!  Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that.         Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson.  And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage.         The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance.  I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine.   I won't even mention Haiti.            Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future.         History is not bunk.  And culture is a helluva thing!         Carlton Samuels     2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >     Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently.         If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different.         Wolfgang         http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/     ____________________________________________________________     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         -----Inline Attachment Follows-----             ____________________________________________________________     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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 20 13:36:04 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Message-ID: <739367.97510.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Is the internet "governed" by men, laws, or multinational corporations.  If by men, who elected them to do that?  If by law, what representative body enacted them? and what court interprets them? If by corporation, oh sh-- --- On Mon, 7/20/09, Carlton Samuels wrote: From: Carlton Samuels Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 2:50 PM The role of that the interests of the "security state" would play in defining Internet governance was always apparent to me. And when it makes the NYT in plain language, it  is past speculation.  For some of us, the Internet represents nothing less that the last best vehicle for social, economic and political development.  I agree with you Wolfgang on the priority of the bottom-up policy development process.  It has the best prospect to give everyone and all interests - all peoples - a chance to be heard.  This is the policy perspective that commands my unwavering support. Carlton Samuels 2009/7/20 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Thanks for the start of the discussion aound the "Cyber Monrioe Doctrin". Here is another point which needs obviously more debate: In a meeting we had early June 2009 in Bejing, China Vice-Minister of ther Ministry for Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) declared very directly that the "securtiy and stability is priority Nunmber One for the exploding Chinese Internet Industry". China sees its own turf in Cyberspace to protect its country and interests. Russias President Medweded told the 3000 participants of the Annual Russia Internet Forum near Moscow recently that Cybersecurity is very high on the agenda of Russia Foreign Policy. Before Obama went to Moscow, the NYT/International Herald Tribune reported on its frontpage (June 27, 2009) "US and Russia split over cyberperil". The article says: "Both nations agree that cyberspacve is an emerging battleground. The United States is preparing to address the subject when President Obama visits Russia in July and at the General Assembly of the UN in November, according to a senior State Deparment official. But there the agreement end. Russia favours an internaitonal treaty along the lines of those negotiated for chemical weapons, and has pushed for that approach at a series of meetings this yeaer and in public statements by hig ranking officials. The United States argues that a treaty is unnecessary. It instead advocates improved cooperation among international law enforcement groups". When Obama was in Moscow the issue of "cybersecurity" was  not raised in public, neither in the press conference nor in Obamas speech at the "New Economy School". Space for speculation? At least there are three good questions if you link this to Ms. Davidson doctrione proposal: Who has a turf in cyberspace? What is mine and what is yours in cyberspace? And how to manage the cybercommons? What do we need? Enhanced cooperation? Enhanced IGF? Enhanced G 20? First priority for the moment should be transparency in a bottom up policy developoment process, if there is a PDP underway. No need for new closed doors in an open cyberspace. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Mo 20.07.2009 07:02 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda Scartezini; Carlton Samuels; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? I am always amuzed at students of history placing modern day values and societal norms over their lens while gaining perspective of historical stuff. As though we can somehow empathetically understand the dynamics of a given place in time by applying our current anthropological bias. Then in order to come up with fuel for a given contention we apply liberally the damaging effects of a policy that was correct at the time of inception but through lack of action remained passed its' intended lifespan and caused unintended debilitary effects.  ICANN today can not be viewed through the visionary glasses of Jon Postel as it exists today. It must be viewed through the corrupt lens of current reality. Massive multinational conspiratorial Corporations now run the net, not DARPA style engineers with ten pound spectacles and slide rulers. We should not look to Countries to redefine the roles and responsibilities of netizens and carpetbaggers but rather to the driving forces of international monetary schemes. I think using the same models of testing historic events we will look back on this "consensual" document that was just produced and judge it harshly, not due to its' genius but due to the lack of participatory validity. --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Vanda Scartezini wrote:        From: Vanda Scartezini        Subject: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?        To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Carlton Samuels'" , "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'"        Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 12:22 PM        Carlton         I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be naïve on this.        Vanda Scartezini        POLO Consultores Associados        &  IT Trend        Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8        01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.        Fone + 55 11 3266.6253        Mob + 5511 8181.1464        From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels        Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM        To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"        Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?        Um, see, history matters!  Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that.        Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson.  And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage.        The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance.  I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine.   I won't even mention Haiti.        Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future.        History is not bunk.  And culture is a helluva thing!        Carlton Samuels        2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >        Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently.        If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different.        Wolfgang        http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/        ____________________________________________________________        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        -----Inline Attachment Follows-----        ____________________________________________________________        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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 14:47:58 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:47:58 +0500 Subject: [governance] Tool to facilitate censorship Message-ID: <701af9f70907201147o5550c57cq8de208cd356cfcdd@mail.gmail.com> Tool to facilitate censorship By Huma Yusuf Monday, 20 Jul, 2009 | 08:33 AM PST | http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/09-tool-to-facilitate-censorship--szh-01 It seems many Pakistanis have been enjoying forwarding text messages poking fun at President Asif Zardari because the backlash against the Cyber Crime Act (CCA) has focused largely on the FIA’s intention to crack down on indecent SMS. But a more interesting problem — both for the authorities and the public — is emerging online thanks to the act. Once again, an official campaign threatens to undermine civil liberties while failing to achieve anything productive. The CCA — under which people who send ‘ill-motivated’ texts and emails can face up to 14 years in prison — also claims to target organisations that have been using the Internet to disseminate propaganda and rally against Pakistan’s security forces. Many in the blogosphere interpreted this to mean that FIA would target extremist and terrorist websites, an effort that would be consistent with the broader fight against militant groups in the northwest. The government has been gearing for a crackdown against extremism online. In the wake of the Mumbai attacks last year, when it became apparent that the terrorists had communicated using Internet phone calls routed through Houston-based servers, the Pakistan government asked the United States to shut down terrorist websites hosted by American companies. US refusal to do so at the time led to a diplomatic row. In April, however, the US announced that in addition to jamming illegal FM radio stations in the Frontier, it would try to block extremist Pakistani websites and chat rooms, particularly those containing videos of terrorist attacks and inflammatory material. The next month, a group known as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Punjab claimed responsibility for a suicide attack in Lahore, on a militant Turkish website run by Elif Media. In this context, the CCA’s clause about addressing malicious online content seemed to be part of a wider effort to clamp down on terrorism. The fact that the FIA also requested Interpol’s help in identifying email addresses and websites hosted by foreign servers indicates that the authorities want to join the ongoing international drive against online extremism. Unlike the crackdown on SMS text messaging and emails, the CCA’s effort against websites appeared rational. But days after the act came into effect, the FIA blocked a Balochi website (www.balochunity.org) for containing ‘anti-state’ material. The website promotes Baloch nationalism and demands Baloch control of the province’s resources. Although access to the website is now denied, a snapshot of Baloch Unity from last year can be viewed using an Internet archive. While the website calls for a ‘struggle for self-determination’ it does not explicitly advocate a violent uprising. And while there are many references to ‘oppressors,’ the Pakistani state is not singled out. The website’s mission statement states that the site presents the Baloch agenda before Balochistan’s political parties to save ‘Balochistan and the Baloch nation from … usurpers’. With this example, the CCA finds itself in murky waters. Since Sept 11, 2001, western governments have blocked innumerable terrorist websites on the basis that they promote hate speech and incite violence, which cannot be safeguarded by the democratic right to free speech. If ever a government has shut down a website that was not explicitly violent or threatening, it has been accused of censorship. The FIA’s decision to block Baloch Unity seems more like blatant censorship than a security measure, particularly given the current political scenario in Balochistan. As such, the blocking of the website confirms the Pakistani public’s worst suspicions about the CCA: it is a tool to facilitate state censorship that will arbitrarily define ‘anti-state’ content with no transparent definitions or guidelines in place. If the government continues to block online content that is not universally perceived as violent or hateful, it will make a sham of the democratic right to free speech. Let’s take a couple of steps back and consider the logic of the CCA. The act has already been slammed for invading citizens’ privacy, meting out disproportionate punishment, and making it easier for the state to target or frame individuals. For argument’s sake, let’s assume that the FIA genuinely intends to block extremist and terrorist websites alone. Even then, the CCA comes across badly. A recent study by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence — an international coalition of academic institutions, including the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies — claims that net filtering cannot stem online extremism. The study points out that there is more anxiety about what might be happening online than actual Internet activity that governments can pinpoint. As a result, ineffective or unworkable policies are put in place (case in point, the CCA). Usually, such government efforts produce a political backlash since the rhetoric on extremist websites is protected by free speech clauses (another case in point, this article). The study also points out that online content is mobile and elusive: block a website and it will shortly reappear on a different server under a new domain name. For example, the FIA closed the website of the UK-based Hizbut Tahrir last week, but the banned group has already launched a new URL and initiated an SMS campaign to contact Pakistanis. While static websites can be screened for offending keywords, dynamic chat rooms and forums — which comprise the bulk of extremist activity online — are nearly impossible to filter. It doesn’t help that terrorist websites are primarily populated by ‘converts’ who go online to extend ties and activities that they developed offline. Indeed, individuals probably cannot find extremist content without contacts telling them where to look. Shutting down terrorist websites will, therefore, not be effective until militant networks in the real world are eliminated. Given the futility of net filtering, the study recommends that governments prioritise stemming terrorism in the real, rather than in the virtual world — there is no more effective use of resources than deterring the producers of extremist content. The study also urges governments to promote media literacy and foster a culture of self-regulation by strengthening reporting mechanisms and complaint processing. That way, the collective intelligence of the public can identify ‘malicious’ websites and the legal system can analyse each example to ensure that free speech is protected without jeopardising public security. In this scenario, the government cannot be accused of conducting an online witch-hunt. This government already has patchy democratic credentials. If it has no plans of articulating transparent parameters within which the CCA can be enforced effectively, it should repeal the act as soon as possible. huma.yusuf at gmail.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Jul 20 15:21:42 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:21:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <936870.16786.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <001601ca096f$52c4a7c0$f84df740$@com.br> Hi Wolf , yes I remember Beijing, here ( Brazil and other G20 countries) the security is also the main issue. Treats means government closed decision which is not the best for cyberspace, but a huge policy is mandatory. Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:19 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Thanks for the start of the discussion aound the "Cyber Monrioe Doctrin". Here is another point which needs obviously more debate: In a meeting we had early June 2009 in Bejing, China Vice-Minister of ther Ministry for Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) declared very directly that the "securtiy and stability is priority Nunmber One for the exploding Chinese Internet Industry". China sees its own turf in Cyberspace to protect its country and interests. Russias President Medweded told the 3000 participants of the Annual Russia Internet Forum near Moscow recently that Cybersecurity is very high on the agenda of Russia Foreign Policy. Before Obama went to Moscow, the NYT/International Herald Tribune reported on its frontpage (June 27, 2009) "US and Russia split over cyberperil". The article says: "Both nations agree that cyberspacve is an emerging battleground. The United States is preparing to address the subject when President Obama visits Russia in July and at the General Assembly of the UN in November, according to a senior State Deparment official. But there the agreement end. Russia favours an internaitonal treaty along the lines of those negotiated for chemical weapons, and has pushed for that approach at a series of meetings this yeaer and in public statements by hig ranking officials. The United States argues that a treaty is unnecessary. It instead advocates improved cooperation among international law enforcement groups". When Obama was in Moscow the issue of "cybersecurity" was not raised in public, neither in the press conference nor in Obamas speech at the "New Economy School". Space for speculation? At least there are three good questions if you link this to Ms. Davidson doctrione proposal: Who has a turf in cyberspace? What is mine and what is yours in cyberspace? And how to manage the cybercommons? What do we need? Enhanced cooperation? Enhanced IGF? Enhanced G 20? First priority for the moment should be transparency in a bottom up policy developoment process, if there is a PDP underway. No need for new closed doors in an open cyberspace. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Gesendet: Mo 20.07.2009 07:02 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda Scartezini; Carlton Samuels; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? I am always amuzed at students of history placing modern day values and societal norms over their lens while gaining perspective of historical stuff. As though we can somehow empathetically understand the dynamics of a given place in time by applying our current anthropological bias. Then in order to come up with fuel for a given contention we apply liberally the damaging effects of a policy that was correct at the time of inception but through lack of action remained passed its' intended lifespan and caused unintended debilitary effects. ICANN today can not be viewed through the visionary glasses of Jon Postel as it exists today. It must be viewed through the corrupt lens of current reality. Massive multinational conspiratorial Corporations now run the net, not DARPA style engineers with ten pound spectacles and slide rulers. We should not look to Countries to redefine the roles and responsibilities of netizens and carpetbaggers but rather to the driving forces of international monetary schemes. I think using the same models of testing historic events we will look back on this "consensual" document that was just produced and judge it harshly, not due to its' genius but due to the lack of participatory validity. --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Vanda Scartezini wrote: From: Vanda Scartezini Subject: RE: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Carlton Samuels'" , "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 12:22 PM Carlton I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be naïve on this. Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that. Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage. The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even mention Haiti. Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future. History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! Carlton Samuels 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different. Wolfgang http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ ____________________________________________________________ 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 17:04:19 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:34:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] off-topic An invitation to write about your organization's pursuit of Internet Governance issues. Message-ID: Hello All, This is an invitation to the participants of this list, as individuals and as representatives of the organizations that they represent, to publish blog posts at the OneWebDay Stories blog. One of the challenges in Internet Governance is to create awareness of the Internet Governance issues among the public. On this challenging task, OneWebDay is beginning to do some good work. OneWebDay was founded by Susan Crawford. According to Crawford, “peoples’ lives now are as dependent on the Internet as they are on the basics like roads, energy supplies and running water. We can no longer take that for granted, and we must advocate for the Internet politically and support its vitality personally.” Sepember 22 is celebrated worldwide as OneWebDay. For the last three years, OneWebDay has attracted a global network of partner organizations and individual activists committed to broadening the public’s awareness of Internet and Web issues while deepening a culture of participation in building a Web that works for everyone. In 2008, OneWebDay organizers documented volunteer-driven events 34 different cities across the world. As part of the activities of OneWebDay, a Stories blog is open for individuals to blog about how the Internet transforms the lives of people, or for organizations to write about the the values they stand for. For an overview of the Stories published last year, please take a look at http://www.onewebday.org/stories. This year apart from inviting Bloggers from around the world to write stories to share their positive experiences on the Web, OneWebDay is inviting Internet voluntary Orgnaizations to write about what makes the Internet an extraordinary ecosystem for the people of the world to connect to each other. The blog is set up with easy an interface to post text, pictures and video. Please post a story about how the web has transformed your life or the lives of a community you belong to, or the city you live in or your country. The ’story’ could be on the theme of Digital Inclusion but coudl also be about any topic related to the Internet. The story needs to be factual but you have a choice to be businesslike, narrative or even poetic. The stories can be reflections of how the web has transformed people’s lives, in the individual, political, economic, cultural and spiritual sphere. Organizations may write in easy-to-understand format about Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Access to knolwlege or any other value(s) they work for. For more information please visit http://www.onewebday.org/stories and http://www,onewebday.org Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy as a volunteer for OneWebDay Stories. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From karl at cavebear.com Mon Jul 20 22:49:11 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:49:11 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <936870.16786.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719341@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4A652CA7.8090405@cavebear.com> On 07/20/2009 01:18 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > In a meeting we had early June 2009 in Bejing, China Vice-Minister of > ther Ministry for Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) declared > very directly that the "securtiy and stability is priority Nunmber > One for the exploding Chinese Internet Industry". China sees its own > turf in Cyberspace to protect its country and interests. I'm going to make a bit of a detour here. My company (InterWorking Labs, www.iwl.com) does testing of internet protocol implementations for both conformance and robustness. The latter part is the interesting part - a substantial portion of internet code, to put it extremely mildely, is junk. A lot of internet code is very poorly written - it has been tested only under the most benign of conditions. And it often crumbles when subjected to packets (or transport conditions) that are completely within the specification of the protocol but that are only newly encountered. This relates to stability and security in a couple of ways. First is simply that code tested under only benign conditions is like an aircraft tested only in good daytime weather; one should not be surprised by failures. Second, and a more subtle point, is this: This bad code is a time bomb that can (and often does) goes off sometime in the future when new devices are introduced into the net that do things in perfectly legitimate ways. A lot of people who have these old undertested devices tend to react and presume that their devices are under attack. Third, when the net wobbles, as it often does, there are people and tools who have to go out there and perform diagnostic tests and initiate repairs. These people need to bypass a lot of security (and often see a lot of private data) in order to do what they need to do. But net architectures, security measures, and laws rarely make provision for this very necessary function. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Wed Jul 22 22:22:09 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:22:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Jay Sulzberger we-do-not-exist anti ICANN campaign goes live Message-ID: <874c02a20907221922l7dc222b0qc5c0974654908e0c@mail.gmail.com> Jay Sulzberger, a new and popular advocate to icann has made an impression with a ccTLD operator at the Dot TK Domain Name Registry. .TK is the country code TLD for Tokelau administered by Teletok (Telecommunication Tokelau Corporation) the local telecommunications authority. Tokelau Islands formerly known as the Union Islands is a territory of New Zealand that consists of three tropical coral atolls in the South Pacific Ocean. Tokelau is designated by the United Nations as a Non-Self-Governing Territory. The technical contact for .TK is *Joost Zuurbier* at BV Dot TK. we-do-not-exist .tk domain went live today http://bit.ly/PotLu in support of the #icann campaign lead by Free Software advocate Jay Sulzberger http://bit.ly/hyoIu If anyone want to follow up - here are the contact details. Organisation: BV Dot TK Dot TK Domain Name Registry P.O. Box 11774 1001 GT Amsterdam Noord-Holland Netherlands Phone: +31 20 5315725 Fax: +31 20 5315721 E-mail: copyright at dot.tk *Joost Zuurbier* BV Dot TK Keizersgracht 213 Amsterdam NH 1016 DT The Netherlands *Email:* joost.zuurbier at dot.tk *Voice:* +31 20 531 5725 *Fax:* +31 20 531 5721 regards Joe Baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From robin at ipjustice.org Thu Jul 23 13:52:57 2009 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:52:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] Last Day to Tell ICANN to Listen to Noncommercial Users Message-ID: <83DF73CD-76A1-4C32-9976-F147D02D2CFF@ipjustice.org> Reminder: Today is the last day for submitting comments to ICANN on its attempt to impose the NCSG Charter that will stranglehold noncommercial users with bureaucracy and conflicts. Please add your individual support to the comments already submitted by civil society groups including APC, Public Knowledge, IP Justice, Yale ISP, IGP, ISOC-Mauritius, etc. If you haven't done so yet, please send a quick email to ICANN today asking it to reinstate the NCSG charter drafted by NCUC and supported by more than 80 noncommercial organizations and individuals in the April comment period (which ICANN has ignored). The NCSG charter will decide how effective noncommercial users can be on every single issue we face in the future, so if there was ever a time to weigh-in on an ICANN policy issue - this is it. To comment, send an email to gnso-stakeholder-charters at icann.org before the end-of-business in California TODAY (close to the end of the global day). Here are the comments submitted so far: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/ Thank you very much! Robin "Is ICANN Accountable to the Global Public Interest?": http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jul 23 18:51:53 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:51:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A88C3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A88C3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233F0A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> A wonderful thing is happening on the ICANN public comment board. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/ Public interest groups from all over the world have mobilized to express support for the NCUC charter proposal. What seemed to be an obscure procedural issue months ago has attracted worldwide attention. Civil society groups are objecting strongly to the ICANN management's attempt to manipulate and control its allegedly "bottom up" policy making structures. These are not your standard two-line ICANN public comments, "I support this, I hate that." These are not your usual commenters, the same insiders who have held the same positions in the ICANN's GNSO for 10 years. The entries are from new people, many of the comments are unusually long and articulate, and motivated by a sense of disbelief and injustice. A dissident Chinese blogger, Isaac Mao, http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00024.html" wrote in to compare ICANN's staff to China's "50 cent army," the name for bloggers paid by the Chinese state since 2005 to post comments favorable to government policies to skew the public opinion on Internet message boards. Dr. Laura DeNardis, of the Yale Information Society Project, sternly told ICANN that "whether or not this was ICANN's intention, allowing a public comment period on the ICANN staff-developed charter is being construed as an attempt to paint a veneer of legitimacy and grassroots participation on a fundamentally non-democratic document." An Indian Professor marvels, "It is rather paradoxical that in administering the internet which wired the whole world together seamlessly, ICANN should be ...creating divisions!" >From South Africa, http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00023.html Andrew Rens, Director of Freedom to Innovate, a major NGO there, warns ICANN that their action "undermines efforts by a number of organisations in the developing world which have advocated engagement with ICANN in the face of considerable scepticism. Appropriate participation of civil society in ICANN is an absolute minimum requirement for civil society organisations advocating engagement with ICANN, rather than the construction of alternative organisations by developing world governments suggested by some critics." And aside from the civil society activists, the only other comments are from prospective members of the new Commercial Stakeholders Group who have also been shafted. Staff chose not to unilaterally rewrite the proposed charter of the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG), which was designed to prevent any new constituencies from being formed. (It would require new constituencies to gain the approval of the existing constituencies, and since any new constituency would inherently take voting seats on the Council away from the new constituencies, this is a guarantee that the tiny group of business-trademark interests that have controlled the Business constituencies for years will be insulated from any diversity and new representation. To read these comments is to wonder, how did ICANN ever get this warped? And: how can they not listen this time? Unfortunately, those familiar with ICANN's policy staff know that it has never learned how to listen and respond fairly to public comment. Ignoring or dismissing it is part of their culture. But if wiser, higher-level Board and management are paying attention, it will be hard for them to ignore this. And if they do, they may have a firestorm on their hands at the Seoul meeting. This issue will not go away. The Association for Progressive Communications, a global NGO and a leader of civil society in WSIS and IGF, concluded its comments on a hopeful note: "We are of the view that if ICANN were to adopt the NCUC's NCSG Charter, this would signal to civil society that ICANN takes civil society participation seriously and is turning over a new leaf with civil society groups. This is an opportunity for ICANN as an institution to take forward the GNSO reforms on a positive basis." Are you listening, Roberto Gaetano? Are you listening, Rob Beckstrom? The issue is very simple. Your staff and Board Structural Improvements Committee made a mistake, a bad one. It jettisoned a year-long consensus-based process and it unilaterally imposed its own structure - a badly designed one that will cause everyone huge problems in the future. They did this without even any explanation, not even an attempt to answer the arguments or recognize and address the support for the alternative it rejected. Fix the mistake. We urge President Beckstrom to intervene and pull the plug on this budding disaster before any further damage is done. ------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe, please send a blank message with the subject "unsubscribe" to info at media-democracy.net MADCoList Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/140611/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/140611/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=14630210&id_secret=14630210-75f55908 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 23 21:33:12 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? Message-ID: <451761.23479.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> We are seeing at least a shift from; "If we do not participate they cannot claim legitimacy" to a much more rigorous and honorable "give em hell Harry" attitude. Those of us in the trenches for years will welcome the current input. Many of us have stepped aside during this period to allow maximized global input without the claim of "the same old malcontents".  The constant monitoring, failure to provide for and downright abuse of participants in the General Assembly of the GNSO in contradiction of their own by-laws is proof of Milton's assertions. Perhaps Mssrs. Gaetano and Beckerman are listening, but I still assume it is merely to circle wagons and hire more country club elitists. --- On Thu, 7/23/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? To: "Governance" Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 10:51 PM A wonderful thing is happening on the ICANN public comment board. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/ Public interest groups from all over the world have mobilized to express support for the NCUC charter proposal. What seemed to be an obscure procedural issue months ago has attracted worldwide attention. Civil society groups are objecting strongly to the ICANN management's attempt to manipulate and control its allegedly "bottom up" policy making structures. These are not your standard two-line ICANN public comments, "I support this, I hate that." These are not your usual commenters, the same insiders who have held the same positions in the ICANN's GNSO for 10 years. The entries are from new people, many of the comments are unusually long and articulate, and motivated by a sense of disbelief and injustice. A dissident Chinese blogger, Isaac Mao, http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00024.html" wrote in to compare ICANN's staff to China's "50 cent army," the name for bloggers paid by the Chinese state since 2005 to post comments favorable to government policies to skew the public opinion on Internet message boards. Dr. Laura DeNardis, of the Yale Information Society Project, sternly told ICANN that "whether or not this was ICANN's intention, allowing a public comment period on the ICANN staff-developed charter is being construed as an attempt to paint a veneer of legitimacy and grassroots participation on a fundamentally non-democratic document." An Indian Professor marvels, "It is rather paradoxical that in administering the internet which wired the whole world together seamlessly, ICANN should be ...creating divisions!" >From South Africa, http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00023.html Andrew Rens, Director of Freedom to Innovate, a major NGO there, warns ICANN that their action "undermines efforts by a number of organisations in the developing world which have advocated engagement with ICANN in the face of considerable scepticism. Appropriate participation of civil society in ICANN is an absolute minimum requirement for civil society organisations advocating engagement with ICANN, rather than the construction of alternative organisations by developing world governments suggested by some critics." And aside from the civil society activists, the only other comments are from prospective members of the new Commercial Stakeholders Group who have also been shafted. Staff chose not to unilaterally rewrite the proposed charter of the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG), which was designed to prevent any new constituencies from being formed. (It would require new constituencies to gain the approval of the existing constituencies, and since any new constituency would inherently take voting seats on the Council away from the new constituencies, this is a guarantee that the tiny group of business-trademark interests that have controlled the Business constituencies for years will be insulated from any diversity and new representation. To read these comments is to wonder, how did ICANN ever get this warped? And: how can they not listen this time? Unfortunately, those familiar with ICANN's policy staff know that it has never learned how to listen and respond fairly to public comment. Ignoring or dismissing it is part of their culture. But if wiser, higher-level Board and management are paying attention, it will be hard for them to ignore this. And if they do, they may have a firestorm on their hands at the Seoul meeting. This issue will not go away. The Association for Progressive Communications, a global NGO and a leader of civil society in WSIS and IGF, concluded its comments on a hopeful note: "We are of the view that if ICANN were to adopt the NCUC's NCSG Charter, this would signal to civil society that ICANN takes civil society participation seriously and is turning over a new leaf with civil society groups. This is an opportunity for ICANN as an institution to take forward the GNSO reforms on a positive basis." Are you listening, Roberto Gaetano? Are you listening, Rob Beckstrom? The issue is very simple. Your staff and Board Structural Improvements Committee made a mistake, a bad one. It jettisoned a year-long consensus-based process and it unilaterally imposed its own structure - a badly designed one that will cause everyone huge problems in the future. They did this without even any explanation, not even an attempt to answer the arguments or recognize and address the support for the alternative it rejected. Fix the mistake. We urge President Beckstrom to intervene and pull the plug on this budding disaster before any further damage is done. ------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe, please send a blank message with the subject "unsubscribe" to info at media-democracy.net MADCoList Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/140611/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/140611/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=14630210&id_secret=14630210-75f55908 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 07:08:29 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:08:29 +0500 Subject: [governance] Audio of speech on Mobile Technology and Convergence during the 12th Session of the UNCSTD Message-ID: <701af9f70907240408u22cfe6c1s74737b87121b7b9@mail.gmail.com> Audio of Panelist, Fouad Bajwa's speech on Mobile Technology and Convergence during the 12th Session of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology, 26th May 2009, Geneva, Switzerland. Title: Mobile Technology, Convergence and Social Networking Tools for Development and Poverty Eradication http://www.unctad.org/sections/meetings/audio/2009-05-26/am/1026-E.MP3 -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Sat Jul 25 17:44:39 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:44:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <451761.23479.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <451761.23479.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <017008C9-AFA6-4BBA-89BF-D43C18F4D3E3@acm.org> On 23 Jul 2009, at 21:33, Eric Dierker wrote: > The constant monitoring, failure to provide for and downright abuse > of participants in the General Assembly of the GNSO in contradiction > of their own by-laws is proof of Milton's assertions. which bylaw are you referring to? at one point i was very interested in seeing the GA list given more of a focus, but the support from the list was never there - it continued to act like a snake pit. and it never got itself to the point where it could get to a coherent consensus like the IGC can - even though they are both civil society efforts open to everyone. further, to compare the NCUC and it efforts to those of the GA List is very insulting to NCUC - they are nothing alike. a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From muguet at mdpi.net Mon Jul 27 16:04:05 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:04:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Opening / Ouverture competition DNS / ITU /IUT expert mission In-Reply-To: <4A6985D4.2000102@mdpi.org> References: <4A5934F6.50005@mdpi.org> <4A697A7C.5000001@unige.ch> <4A6985D4.2000102@mdpi.org> Message-ID: <4A6E0835.40000@mdpi.net> English / Français Dear friends Your kind contributions and suggestions ( whether open or confidential, formal or informal ) are going to be most welcome. Indeed, following my presentation at the WSIS Forum, ( Opening to competition the namespace infrastructure 20 May 2009, Geneva ) , an expert mission was granted to me by ITU in order to : 1. Explore the technical possibilities allowed by the use of the /class/ parameter ( cf. RFC 5395 superseding RFC 2929 ) in order to open to competition the DNS namespace services infrastructure of IP-based networks ; 2. Assess the consequences in terms of IP-based networks ( including Internet ) policies and governance, as well as for the general economy, in particular to confront the economic crisis ; 3. Assess other applications, as appropriate, such as, /inter alia/, tools to enable the semantic web, to facilitate linguistic diversity, to improve security , and to provide namespace services for the "Net of Things", and "Next Generation Networks". that I intend to conduct in the most inclusive way.. As output of this mission, two documents shall be available in an open access manner : 1. A background paper for the general public 2. An issue paper for decision makers, analyzing the policy aspects of the usage of DNS classes, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All the best Francis ======================================================= Chers amis Vos contributions et suggestions (qu'elles soientt publiques ou confidentielles, formelles ou informelles) vont être les bienvenues. En effet, à la suite de ma présentation dans le cadre du Forum du SMSI Forum, ( ( Opening to competition the namespace infrastructure , Ouverture à la concurrence de l'infrastructure de l'espace de nommage 20 Mai 2009, Genève), une mission d'expert m'a été confiée par l'UIT en vue de: 1. Explorez les possibilités techniques permises par l'utilisation du paramètre /class/ (cf. RFC 5395 qui remplace la RFC 2929 ) afin d'ouvrir à la compétition, l'infrastructure des services de nommage DNS des réseaux IP; 2. Évaluer les conséquences en termes des politiques et de la gouvernance des réseaux IP (en incluant l'Internet lainsi que pour l'économie en général, en particulier pour faire face à la crise économique; 3. Évaluer d'autres applications appropriéés, telles que, entre autres, des outils afin de permettre l'épanouissement de la Toile Sémantique, afin de faciliter la diversité linguistique, afin d'améliorer la sécurité, et de fournir des services de nommage pour le "Réseau des Objets" et les Réseaux de Nouvelle Génération. que j'ai l'intention de conduire d'une façon aussi inclusive que faire se peut. Comme résultat de cette mission, deux documents seront disponibles en libre accès: 1. Un document d'information pour le grand public 2. Un document pour les décideurs, analysant les aspects politiques et gouvernance de l'utilisation des /classes / DNS, -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net KNIS http://knis.org Academic Collaboration / University of Geneva http://syinf.unige.ch/cooperation Mobile France +33 6 71 91 42 10 Switzerland +41 78 927 06 97 Cameroun +237 96 55 69 62 ( mostly in July ) World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 28 21:35:38 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? Message-ID: <425074.30887.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Avri,   (sorry for delay in response to your very appropriate question  -  Off picking Blackberries, trying not to catch fish, Hiking, swimming and engaging in general all around conservation efforts within our riparian habitats)   The By-Laws are really very loose when it comes to the GA.  The transfer from Dnso to Gnso or whatever left it in the lurch. But one thing is clear -- it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to you.   Off your site; Under the New ICANN Bylaws: 9. Upon the adoption of this Transition Article, and until further action by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council shall assume responsibility for the DNSO General Assembly e-mail announcement and discussion lists. The GA mailing list will remain open and the voluntary monitors are: Thomas Roessler Alexander Svensson Ross Rader Abel Wisman How to subscribe to mailing lists Announcement list Official announcements, only GNSO Secretariat may write to this list. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the Announcement list, please send an email to with the words subscribe announce (or unsubscribe announce) in the body of the message. General Assembly list Anybody interested in the DNSO issues may subscribe to this list, only subscribers may write to this list Two main principles since the origin of this server in June 1999, explained in the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new subscriber: the non cross-posting rule is reinforced the respect of participants is mandatory More explicit rules of order defined in More about GA list monitoring in Currently, there is a limit of FIVE postings per day on the GA mailing list To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the General Assembly list, please send an email to with the words subscribe ga (or unsubscribe ga) in the body of the message.                                         Avri and all,   True enough that the NCUC is nothing at all like the GA.  As to whether that is a "Good" thing of not of course is a matter of opinion.  The miss characterization of the GA as a "Snake pit" is hardly honest.  Yes, it has at times been contentious, but where there are issues that lend themselves to very starkly divided opinions, often are and should be contentious.   In any event, the GA at one time had over 900 participants.  Due to many factors, over a few years that number has dwindled to what I understand is around 200 or so.  Many have contended that such a reverse in interest was largely due to a lack of ICON staff and Board members participation in a open an transparent manner, AND due to a lack of some being more interested is trying to enforce on others how to express themselves, ergo lacking free speech acumen and consideration accordingly.   So Miltons assertions and Erics remarks in respect to same, are entirely accurate.  BTW Avri, Eric, Danny, and myself have many times pointed out directly to you and most of the GNSO council members exactly which bylaw has been continually violated.  In any event, you are perfectly able to look that fact and the bylaws up for yourself I would hope. Avri Doria wrote: > On 23 Jul 2009, at 21:33, Eric Dierker wrote: > > > The constant monitoring, failure to provide for and downright abuse > > of participants in the General Assembly of the GNSO in contradiction > > of their own by-laws is proof of Milton's assertions. > > which bylaw are you referring to? > > at one point i was very interested in seeing the GA list given more of > a focus, but the support from the list was never there - it continued > to act like a snake pit. and it never got itself to the point where it > could get to a coherent consensus like the IGC can - even though they > are both civil society efforts open to everyone. > > further, to compare the NCUC and it efforts to those of the GA List is > very insulting to NCUC - they are nothing alike. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -    Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Tue Jul 28 21:58:01 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:58:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <425074.30887.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <425074.30887.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20907281858h1b49e46fnfaca86bdea68331@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM, wrote: > Avri, > > (sorry for delay in response to your very appropriate question - Off > picking Blackberries, trying not to catch fish, Hiking, swimming and > engaging in general all around conservation efforts within our riparian > habitats) > ah so a river. your vocabulary is a bit eclectic in your riparian pursuits. > > > The By-Laws are really very loose when it comes to the GA. The transfer > from Dnso to Gnso or whatever left it in the lurch. But one thing is clear > -- it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to > you. > Exactly. Which brings us to another point. When am I being reinstated on the GA. Do I have to press a button and make ICANN jump? cheers joe baptista > > Off your site; > *Under the New ICANN Bylaws:* > > > > 9. Upon the adoption of this Transition Article, and until further action > by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council shall assume responsibility for the > DNSO General Assembly e-mail announcement and discussion lists. > > The GA mailing list will remain open and the voluntary monitors are: > Thomas Roessler > Alexander Svensson > Ross Rader > Abel Wisman > *How to subscribe to mailing lists* > *Announcement list* > > - Official announcements, only GNSO Secretariat may write to this list. > > - To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the Announcement list, please send > an email to with > the words *subscribe announce* (or *unsubscribe announce*) in the body > of the message. > > *General Assembly list* > > - Anybody interested in the DNSO issues may subscribe to this list, > only subscribers may write to this list > - Two main principles since the origin of this server in June 1999, > explained in the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new subscriber: > 1. the non cross-posting rule is reinforced > 2. the respect of participants is mandatory > - More explicit rules of order defined in > > - More about GA list monitoring in > > - Currently, there is a limit of FIVE postings per day on the GA > mailing list > - To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the General Assembly list, please > send an email to with > the words *subscribe ga* (or *unsubscribe ga*) in the body of the > message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avri and all, > > True enough that the NCUC is nothing at all like the GA. As to > whether that is a "Good" thing of not of course is a matter of > opinion. The miss characterization of the GA as a "Snake pit" > is hardly honest. Yes, it has at times been contentious, but where > there are issues that lend themselves to very starkly divided opinions, > often are and should be contentious. > > In any event, the GA at one time had over 900 participants. Due > to many factors, over a few years that number has dwindled to > what I understand is around 200 or so. Many have contended that > such a reverse in interest was largely due to a lack of ICON staff > and Board members participation in a open an transparent manner, > AND due to a lack of some being more interested is trying to > enforce on others how to express themselves, ergo lacking free > speech acumen and consideration accordingly. > > So Miltons assertions and Erics remarks in respect to same, are > entirely accurate. BTW Avri, Eric, Danny, and myself have many > times pointed out directly to you and most of the GNSO council > members exactly which bylaw has been continually violated. In > any event, you are perfectly able to look that fact and the bylaws > up for yourself I would hope. > > > Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 23 Jul 2009, at 21:33, Eric Dierker wrote: > > > > > The constant monitoring, failure to provide for and downright abuse > > > of participants in the General Assembly of the GNSO in contradiction > > > of their own by-laws is proof of Milton's assertions. > > > > which bylaw are you referring to? > > > > at one point i was very interested in seeing the GA list given more of > > a focus, but the support from the list was never there - it continued > > to act like a snake pit. and it never got itself to the point where it > > could get to a coherent consensus like the IGC can - even though they > > are both civil society efforts open to everyone. > > > > further, to compare the NCUC and it efforts to those of the GA List is > > very insulting to NCUC - they are nothing alike. > > > > a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 28 22:14:42 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? Message-ID: <467029.90344.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Joe,   I am a native southwestern USaian. Rivers and streams and creeks are our lifesblood.   As should be openness and transparency in any Internet Governance model.  In this instance Avri Doria is directly responsible for any suspension or censorship under the auspices of the GNSO. But as you can see from my post; ICANN cannot even maintain a list or make by law provision for it. Total incompetence or intentional disruption of public input. An obvious obviscation of truth. The exact opposite of transparency. I have made many mistakes, but try to learn from them. Perhaps we can learn from the egotistical mistake of ICANN. --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Joe Baptista wrote: From: Joe Baptista Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Cc: "Avri Doria" , "GAC Rep" , "Jeffrey A. Williams" , "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" , "Parminder" , "Ian Peter" , "DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep" Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 1:58 AM On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM, wrote: Avri,   (sorry for delay in response to your very appropriate question  -  Off picking Blackberries, trying not to catch fish, Hiking, swimming and engaging in general all around conservation efforts within our riparian habitats) ah so a river. your vocabulary is a bit eclectic in your riparian pursuits.     The By-Laws are really very loose when it comes to the GA.  The transfer from Dnso to Gnso or whatever left it in the lurch. But one thing is clear -- it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to you. Exactly. Which brings us to another point. When am I being reinstated on the GA. Do I have to press a button and make ICANN jump? cheers joe baptista     Off your site; Under the New ICANN Bylaws: 9. Upon the adoption of this Transition Article, and until further action by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council shall assume responsibility for the DNSO General Assembly e-mail announcement and discussion lists. The GA mailing list will remain open and the voluntary monitors are: Thomas Roessler Alexander Svensson Ross Rader Abel Wisman How to subscribe to mailing lists Announcement list Official announcements, only GNSO Secretariat may write to this list. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the Announcement list, please send an email to with the words subscribe announce (or unsubscribe announce) in the body of the message. General Assembly list Anybody interested in the DNSO issues may subscribe to this list, only subscribers may write to this list Two main principles since the origin of this server in June 1999, explained in the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new subscriber: the non cross-posting rule is reinforced the respect of participants is mandatory More explicit rules of order defined in More about GA list monitoring in Currently, there is a limit of FIVE postings per day on the GA mailing list To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the General Assembly list, please send an email to with the words subscribe ga (or unsubscribe ga) in the body of the message.                                         Avri and all,   True enough that the NCUC is nothing at all like the GA.  As to whether that is a "Good" thing of not of course is a matter of opinion.  The miss characterization of the GA as a "Snake pit" is hardly honest.  Yes, it has at times been contentious, but where there are issues that lend themselves to very starkly divided opinions, often are and should be contentious.   In any event, the GA at one time had over 900 participants.  Due to many factors, over a few years that number has dwindled to what I understand is around 200 or so.  Many have contended that such a reverse in interest was largely due to a lack of ICON staff and Board members participation in a open an transparent manner, AND due to a lack of some being more interested is trying to enforce on others how to express themselves, ergo lacking free speech acumen and consideration accordingly.   So Miltons assertions and Erics remarks in respect to same, are entirely accurate.  BTW Avri, Eric, Danny, and myself have many times pointed out directly to you and most of the GNSO council members exactly which bylaw has been continually violated.  In any event, you are perfectly able to look that fact and the bylaws up for yourself I would hope. Avri Doria wrote: > On 23 Jul 2009, at 21:33, Eric Dierker wrote: > > > The constant monitoring, failure to provide for and downright abuse > > of participants in the General Assembly of the GNSO in contradiction > > of their own by-laws is proof of Milton's assertions. > > which bylaw are you referring to? > > at one point i was very interested in seeing the GA list given more of > a focus, but the support from the list was never there - it continued > to act like a snake pit. and it never got itself to the point where it > could get to a coherent consensus like the IGC can - even though they > are both civil society efforts open to everyone. > > further, to compare the NCUC and it efforts to those of the GA List is > very insulting to NCUC - they are nothing alike. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -    Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ----------------------------------------------------------------  Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Wed Jul 29 06:44:54 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:44:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <425074.30887.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <425074.30887.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <72A8722B-EE91-41B2-8AA6-2C52AB3E5969@acm.org> On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: > it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is > up to you. I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a regular basis. The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it regularly. I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me. That is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make the GA list re- evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something. Until then, I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 29 11:30:52 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? Message-ID: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Well that is very nice Avri.  And I agree with much of what you say.  However their are two people who were regular contributors suspended/censored from the list.  There are no recognized monitors and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with nothing open and transparent.  So your talk is not consistent with your actions as is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat.   So you really do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability to do and say opposite things. --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? To: "Governance List" Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: > it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to you. I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a regular basis. The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it regularly. I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me.  That is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not about to become one of them  If the list wants to be more then a list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!).  At that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something.  Until then, I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From llynch at civil-tongue.net Wed Jul 29 11:44:34 2009 From: llynch at civil-tongue.net (Lucy Lynch) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: > Well that is very nice Avri.  And I agree with much of what you say.  > However their are two people who were regular contributors > suspended/censored from the list.  There are no recognized monitors and > the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with > nothing open and transparent.  So your talk is not consistent with your > actions as is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental > process is backroom and by fiat.   So you really do epitomize ICANNs > lack of accountability and ability to do and say opposite things. Using full headers reveals: List-Id: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed sorry for interrupting with technical info... > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: > > > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > To: "Governance List" > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM > > > > On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to you. > > I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. > Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a regular basis. > > The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it regularly. > > > I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me.  That is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not about to become one of them  If the list wants to be more then a list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. > > In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!).  At that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something.  Until then, I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 29 23:42:03 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? Message-ID: <395177.31179.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Sorry, Not the first time I did not check. Mia Culpa, my bad.   Our cool netiquette rules have been developed over a good period of time.  They are not nonsense.  In a very real respect/aspect they are as important as our Net Gov. of Protocals and Addressing.  While sometimes passion and conviction seem to require a breach of common courtesy it should never be the rule. We should all endeavor to share a mutual respect by abiding by civil society decency in communication.   A very poor and not so bright man once spoke; "if only my neighbor could to me, and I could to her, be fair, honest and courteous, I scarcely say there would be little need for government or laws"  (ed - to a Jury, in a murder trial 1986)   A big thank you to all those who monitor and domo, the world is a better place for your efforts.   Eric --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Lucy Lynch wrote: From: Lucy Lynch Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Avri Doria" Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 3:44 PM On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: > Well that is very nice Avri.  And I agree with much of what you say.  However their are two people who were regular contributors suspended/censored from the list.  There are no recognized monitors and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with nothing open and transparent.  So your talk is not consistent with your actions as is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat.   So you really do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability to do and say opposite things. Using full headers reveals: List-Id: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed sorry for interrupting with technical info... > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: > > > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > To: "Governance List" > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM > > > > On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to you. > > I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. > Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a regular basis. > > The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it regularly. > > > I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me.  That is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not about to become one of them  If the list wants to be more then a list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. > > In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!).  At that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something.  Until then, I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 30 00:06:13 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Standing up, trudging forward -- our best resources Message-ID: <661972.48031.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Somewhere in our last ten to twenty years of communications we have lost the voice in the crowd.  Something as we started this journey into instant transglobal communication scared off the commoner from participating. I think quite clearly it was because in the beginning we had to be just a little eccentric and techno based just to use these contraptions to communicate. I think bright good people were turned off and tuned out.   My father at 90 began to use the concept known as webtv to write to me. We expanded until his death at 96 in 2003.  He was born in 1907 yet without fear he was able to accept and delight in this newfound tool of instant communication.   Somehow Governance must lead us in the direction of inclusion. Not just developing societies and young, and dissenfranchised but our older common stateswomen that we rely upon for our advice, when we are smart. A2k has been quite consumed in bridging a "blind gap".  And this is a wonderful focus. But I think the generation gap must also be bridged and abridged.   Governmental outreach must include heretofor "left out" segments of all society.   Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jul 30 01:48:43 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:48:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <395177.31179.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <395177.31179.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A71343B.9070901@wzb.eu> Hi, can you please take discussions about the GA list elsewhere and also stop attacking members of the IG caucus? Thank you. Jeanette Eric Dierker wrote: > Sorry, Not the first time I did not check. Mia Culpa, my bad. > > Our cool netiquette rules have been developed over a good period of > time. They are not nonsense. In a very real respect/aspect they are as > important as our Net Gov. of Protocals and Addressing. While sometimes > passion and conviction seem to require a breach of common courtesy it > should never be the rule. We should all endeavor to share a mutual > respect by abiding by civil society decency in communication. > > A very poor and not so bright man once spoke; "if only my neighbor could > to me, and I could to her, be fair, honest and courteous, I scarcely say > there would be little need for government or laws" (ed - to a Jury, in > a murder trial 1986) > > A big thank you to all those who monitor and domo, the world is a better > place for your efforts. > > Eric > > --- On *Wed, 7/29/09, Lucy Lynch //* wrote: > > > From: Lucy Lynch > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" > > Cc: "Avri Doria" > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 3:44 PM > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: > > > Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much of what you > say. However their are two people who were regular contributors > suspended/censored from the list. There are no recognized monitors > and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. > but with nothing open and transparent. So your talk is not > consistent with your actions as is the case generally with the GNSO. > Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat. So you really > do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability to do and say > opposite things. > > Using full headers reveals: > > List-Id: > List-Archive: > List-Help: ?subject=help> > List-Owner: > > List-Post: > > List-Subscribe: ?subject=subscribe%20governance> > List-Unsubscribe: > ?subject=unsubscribe%20governance> > > so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed > > sorry for interrupting with technical info... > > > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > > > > From: Avri Doria > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > > To: "Governance List" > > > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net > > wrote: > > > >> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it > is up to you. > > > > I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up > and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. > > Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on > a regular basis. > > > > The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read > it regularly. > > > > > > I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that > list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish > to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, > without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, > I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me. That > is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make > the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant > to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO > without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already > usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not > about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a > list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the > responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not > hinder that effort. > > > > In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council > (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At > that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, > if I want that list to be something more then a basket for > complaints then it will be become my responsibility as a member of > the list to try and do something. Until then, I am just one of the > caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. > > > > a. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jul 30 06:05:11 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:05:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <4A71343B.9070901@wzb.eu> References: <395177.31179.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4A71343B.9070901@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi On Jul 30, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, can you please take discussions about the GA list elsewhere and > also stop attacking members of the IG caucus? I second the proposal. For example, the GA list might be a good place to discuss the GA list. Bill ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Jul 30 09:45:34 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:45:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20907300645g77929b28vc7400526beb6992@mail.gmail.com> I completely agree with Eric. And not only are you in the wrong Avri but liable for it on behalf of the GNSO and ICANN. I'm going to start pressing that button soon dear. And there will be no return once that happens. I've made ICANN squeal on more then one occassions - must we add another dear? cheers joe baptista On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: > > Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much of what you say. >> However their are two people who were regular contributors >> suspended/censored from the list. There are no recognized monitors and the >> majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with nothing >> open and transparent. So your talk is not consistent with your actions as >> is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental process is backroom >> and by fiat. So you really do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and >> ability to do and say opposite things. >> > > Using full headers reveals: > > List-Id: > List-Archive: > List-Help: > List-Owner: > List-Post: > List-Subscribe: ?subject=subscribe%20governance> > List-Unsubscribe: > > > so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed > > sorry for interrupting with technical info... > > > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> From: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >> To: "Governance List" >> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM >> >> >> >> On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to >>> you. >>> >> >> I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and >> remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. >> Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a regular >> basis. >> >> The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it >> regularly. >> >> >> I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list >> anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on >> ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the >> GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the >> list as out of scope for me. That is, I do not see my responsibility as >> being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling >> what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from >> DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN >> already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not >> about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a list or >> wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those >> on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. >> >> In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can >> hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At that point I >> will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list >> to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my >> responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something. Until then, >> I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and >> nothing more. >> >> a. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Thu Jul 30 10:29:29 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:29:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <874c02a20907300645g77929b28vc7400526beb6992@mail.gmail.com> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907300645g77929b28vc7400526beb6992@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1F961D7F-BFBB-41E3-83DA-131557356C29@acm.org> Hi, Once you get into legal threats, I am forced into silence. a. On 30 Jul 2009, at 15:45, Joe Baptista wrote: > I completely agree with Eric. And not only are you in the wrong Avri > but liable for it on behalf of the GNSO and ICANN. I'm going to > start pressing that button soon dear. And there will be no return > once that happens. I've made ICANN squeal on more then one > occassions - must we add another dear? > > cheers > joe baptista > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Lucy Lynch tongue.net> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: > > Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much of what you > say. However their are two people who were regular contributors > suspended/censored from the list. There are no recognized monitors > and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. > but with nothing open and transparent. So your talk is not > consistent with your actions as is the case generally with the GNSO. > Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat. So you really > do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability to do and say > opposite things. > > Using full headers reveals: > > List-Id: > List-Archive: > List-Help: > List-Owner: > List-Post: > List-Subscribe: > > List-Unsubscribe: > > > so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed > > sorry for interrupting with technical info... > > > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: > > > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > To: "Governance List" > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM > > > > On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: > > it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is > up to you. > > I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and > remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. > Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a > regular basis. > > The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it > regularly. > > > I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that > list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish > to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, > without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, > I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me. That > is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make > the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant > to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO > without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already > usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not > about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a > list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the > responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not > hinder that effort. > > In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I > can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At that > point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I > want that list to be something more then a basket for complaints > then it will be become my responsibility as a member of the list to > try and do something. Until then, I am just one of the caretakers > of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, > Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 From renate.bloem at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 13:31:16 2009 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:31:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] UNGIS: Invitation --> Open Consultations on the Financial Mechanisms / 8-9 October 2009 / Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland Message-ID: <4a71d8e8.09b6660a.50d2.ffffd9c5@mx.google.com> FYI -------------- Dear Renate, As you have seen few minutes ago, in my previous mail we have distributed widely an invitation letter to the Open Consultation on the Financial Mechanisms for Meeting the Challenges of ICT for Development to be held from 8-9 October 2009 at Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland. This meeting is organized jointly by chair and co-chairs of the United Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS), i.e. ITU, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNDP and UNECA. This event will be hosted by ITU. We are very much interested in contributions to this meeting from the civil society. We would like to request you to forward this document to the civil society stakeholders using all possible information channels. Contributions to the meeting may be submitted to the UNGIS Secretariat not later than 20 September 2009. Online registration will be opened shortly at www.ungis.org . With kind regards, Jaroslaw K. PONDER ---------------------------------------------------------- Strategy and Policy Coordinator International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations 1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Tel.: 00 41 22 730 6065 Fax.: 00 41 22 733 7256 E-mail: Jaroslaw.Ponder at itu.int Web: http://www.itu.int Renate Bloem Past President of CONGO Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Jul 30 13:45:51 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:45:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <1F961D7F-BFBB-41E3-83DA-131557356C29@acm.org> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907300645g77929b28vc7400526beb6992@mail.gmail.com> <1F961D7F-BFBB-41E3-83DA-131557356C29@acm.org> Message-ID: <874c02a20907301045ga270baej3d845c66901bd89a@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Once you get into legal threats, I am forced into silence. I'm not threatening you - I'm spelling out the facts. Before I would even consider court I'll kick your ass in the best court of all time. That of public opinion baby. Now I am being censored and thats not nice. Reinstate me. Thats an order baby. I was kicked off the list for exposing a bit of ICANN fraud between the former monitor and icann staff. Fine - big deal - I got an unauthorized vacation and you participated in an immoral act against me which very well was libelous and slanderous. That was you call honey. Not mine :) cheers joe baptista > > > a. > > > On 30 Jul 2009, at 15:45, Joe Baptista wrote: > > I completely agree with Eric. And not only are you in the wrong Avri but >> liable for it on behalf of the GNSO and ICANN. I'm going to start pressing >> that button soon dear. And there will be no return once that happens. I've >> made ICANN squeal on more then one occassions - must we add another dear? >> >> cheers >> joe baptista >> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Lucy Lynch >> wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: >> >> Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much of what you say. >> However their are two people who were regular contributors >> suspended/censored from the list. There are no recognized monitors and the >> majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with nothing >> open and transparent. So your talk is not consistent with your actions as >> is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental process is backroom >> and by fiat. So you really do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and >> ability to do and say opposite things. >> >> Using full headers reveals: >> >> List-Id: >> List-Archive: >> List-Help: >> List-Owner: >> List-Post: >> List-Subscribe: > ?subject=subscribe%20governance> >> List-Unsubscribe: >> >> >> so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed >> >> sorry for interrupting with technical info... >> >> >> --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> From: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >> To: "Governance List" >> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM >> >> >> >> On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to >> you. >> >> I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and >> remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. >> Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a regular >> basis. >> >> The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it >> regularly. >> >> >> I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list >> anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on >> ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the >> GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the >> list as out of scope for me. That is, I do not see my responsibility as >> being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling >> what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from >> DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN >> already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not >> about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a list or >> wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those >> on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. >> >> In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can >> hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At that point I >> will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list >> to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my >> responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something. Until then, >> I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and >> nothing more. >> >> a. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Baptista >> >> www.publicroot.org >> PublicRoot Consortium >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative >> & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Jul 30 14:29:05 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <874c02a20907301045ga270baej3d845c66901bd89a@mail.gmail.com> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907300645g77929b28vc7400526beb6992@mail.gmail.com> <1F961D7F-BFBB-41E3-83DA-131557356C29@acm.org> <874c02a20907301045ga270baej3d845c66901bd89a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <627711.32924.qm@web58903.mail.re1.yahoo.com> How old are you Joe? 12 years old or thereabouts? Your childish behaviour and comments would suggest so. David ________________________________ From: Joe Baptista To: Avri Doria Cc: Governance List Sent: Friday, 31 July, 2009 3:45:51 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >>Once you get into legal threats, I am forced into silence. I'm not threatening you - I'm spelling out the facts. Before I would even consider court I'll kick your ass in the best court of all time. That of public opinion baby. Now I am being censored and thats not nice. Reinstate me. Thats an order baby. I was kicked off the list for exposing a bit of ICANN fraud between the former monitor and icann staff. Fine - big deal - I got an unauthorized vacation and you participated in an immoral act against me which very well was libelous and slanderous. That was you call honey. Not mine :) cheers joe baptista > >>a. > > >>On 30 Jul 2009, at 15:45, Joe Baptista wrote: > > >>>I completely agree with Eric. And not only are you in the wrong Avri but liable for it on behalf of the GNSO and ICANN. I'm going to start pressing that button soon dear. And there will be no return once that happens. I've made ICANN squeal on more then one occassions - must we add another dear? >> >>>>cheers >>>>joe baptista >> >>>>On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote: >>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: >> >>>>Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much of what you say. However their are two people who were regular contributors suspended/censored from the list. There are no recognized monitors and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with nothing open and transparent. So your talk is not consistent with your actions as is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat. So you really do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability to do and say opposite things. >> >>>>Using full headers reveals: >> >>>>List-Id: >>>>List-Archive: >>>>List-Help: >>>>List-Owner: >>>>List-Post: >>>>List-Subscribe: >>>>List-Unsubscribe: >>>> >> >>>>so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed >> >>>>sorry for interrupting with technical info... >> >> >>>>--- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >>>>From: Avri Doria >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >>>>To: "Governance List" >>>>Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM >> >> >> >>>>On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>>>it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to you. >> >>>>I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. >>>>Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a regular basis. >> >>>>The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it regularly. >> >> >>>>I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me. That is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. >> >>>>In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something. Until then, I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. >> >>>>a. >> >> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>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 >> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>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 >> >> >> >> >>>>-- >>>>Joe Baptista >> >>www.publicroot.org >>>>PublicRoot Consortium >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >>>> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >>>>Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jul 30 16:17:13 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:17:13 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: Netiquette on this list In-Reply-To: <1F961D7F-BFBB-41E3-83DA-131557356C29@acm.org> Message-ID: This is just a periodic reminder to everyone on this list (including myself) as regards netiquette. Our charter suggests " Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive. You should not send heated message("flames") even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames.." Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam If we are to be effective here, we do have to separate vigorous debate on issues from personal attacks. An old guideline is be soft on the person, hard on the problem. I am sure we all want to see wide raging debate here on internet governance issues, with a diversity of viewpoints being both allowed and encouraged. However, when this descends to personal abuse, we are losing focus and diverting energy needlessly. The charter does outline a course of action if the guidelines are continually abused. This will be followed if necessary, but we would prefer open, stimulating debate on issues to any suspensions. Please think and reflect before hitting "send", and respond rather than react. Thanks, Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Jul 30 16:29:22 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:29:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <627711.32924.qm@web58903.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907300645g77929b28vc7400526beb6992@mail.gmail.com> <1F961D7F-BFBB-41E3-83DA-131557356C29@acm.org> <874c02a20907301045ga270baej3d845c66901bd89a@mail.gmail.com> <627711.32924.qm@web58903.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20907301329k445af854t2bf4f0266f010a26@mail.gmail.com> Forgive me - for a moment I was under the impression you were talking of Avri. Since childish behavior is definitely what is going on here. When people don't listen anymore treating them as children appropriately places them in their proper places. So Avri - baby - whats going on here - why am I still being censored? regards joe baptista On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:29 PM, David Goldstein < goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote: > How old are you Joe? 12 years old or thereabouts? Your childish behaviour > and comments would suggest so. > > David > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Joe Baptista > *To:* Avri Doria > *Cc:* Governance List > *Sent:* Friday, 31 July, 2009 3:45:51 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Once you get into legal threats, I am forced into silence. > > > I'm not threatening you - I'm spelling out the facts. Before I would even > consider court I'll kick your ass in the best court of all time. That of > public opinion baby. > > Now I am being censored and thats not nice. Reinstate me. Thats an order > baby. I was kicked off the list for exposing a bit of ICANN fraud between > the former monitor and icann staff. Fine - big deal - I got an unauthorized > vacation and you participated in an immoral act against me which very well > was libelous and slanderous. That was you call honey. Not mine :) > > cheers > joe baptista > > >> >> >> a. >> >> >> On 30 Jul 2009, at 15:45, Joe Baptista wrote: >> >> I completely agree with Eric. And not only are you in the wrong Avri but >>> liable for it on behalf of the GNSO and ICANN. I'm going to start pressing >>> that button soon dear. And there will be no return once that happens. I've >>> made ICANN squeal on more then one occassions - must we add another dear? >>> >>> cheers >>> joe baptista >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Lucy Lynch >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: >>> >>> Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much of what you say. >>> However their are two people who were regular contributors >>> suspended/censored from the list. There are no recognized monitors and the >>> majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with nothing >>> open and transparent. So your talk is not consistent with your actions as >>> is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental process is backroom >>> and by fiat. So you really do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and >>> ability to do and say opposite things. >>> >>> Using full headers reveals: >>> >>> List-Id: >>> List-Archive: >>> List-Help: >>> List-Owner: >>> List-Post: >>> List-Subscribe: >> ?subject=subscribe%20governance> >>> List-Unsubscribe: >>> >>> >>> so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed >>> >>> sorry for interrupting with technical info... >>> >>> >>> --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Avri Doria >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >>> To: "Governance List" >>> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to >>> you. >>> >>> I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and >>> remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. >>> Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a >>> regular basis. >>> >>> The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it >>> regularly. >>> >>> >>> I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list >>> anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on >>> ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the >>> GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the >>> list as out of scope for me. That is, I do not see my responsibility as >>> being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling >>> what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from >>> DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN >>> already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not >>> about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a list or >>> wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those >>> on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. >>> >>> In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can >>> hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At that point I >>> will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list >>> to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my >>> responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something. Until then, >>> I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and >>> nothing more. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joe Baptista >>> >>> www.publicroot.org >>> PublicRoot Consortium >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, >>> Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >>> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >>> >>> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > > ------------------------------ > Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how > . > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Jul 30 18:02:15 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <874c02a20907301329k445af854t2bf4f0266f010a26@mail.gmail.com> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907300645g77929b28vc7400526beb6992@mail.gmail.com> <1F961D7F-BFBB-41E3-83DA-131557356C29@acm.org> <874c02a20907301045ga270baej3d845c66901bd89a@mail.gmail.com> <627711.32924.qm@web58903.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907301329k445af854t2bf4f0266f010a26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <270944.30102.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> It's hardly surprising you get treated as a child when you carry on with this behaviour. And no, I'd never level such an accusation against Avri. Maybe start acting like an adult and people will treat you like one. David ________________________________ From: Joe Baptista To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Friday, 31 July, 2009 6:29:22 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? Forgive me - for a moment I was under the impression you were talking of Avri. Since childish behavior is definitely what is going on here. When people don't listen anymore treating them as children appropriately places them in their proper places. So Avri - baby - whats going on here - why am I still being censored? regards joe baptista On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:29 PM, David Goldstein wrote: How old are you Joe? 12 years old or thereabouts? Your childish behaviour and comments would suggest so. > >David > > > > > > ________________________________ >From: Joe Baptista >To: Avri Doria >Cc: Governance List >Sent: Friday, 31 July, 2009 3:45:51 AM > >Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN > listening? > > > > > >On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>Hi, >> >>>>Once you get into legal threats, I am forced into silence. > >I'm not threatening you - I'm spelling out the facts. Before I would even consider court I'll kick your ass in the best court of all time. That of public opinion baby. > >Now I am being censored and thats not nice. Reinstate me. Thats an order baby. I was kicked off the list for exposing a bit of ICANN fraud between the former monitor and icann staff. Fine - big deal - I got an unauthorized vacation and you participated in an immoral act against me which very well was libelous and slanderous. That was you call honey. Not mine :) > >cheers >joe baptista > > >> >>>>a. >> >> >>>>On 30 Jul 2009, at 15:45, Joe Baptista wrote: >> >> >>>>>I completely agree with Eric. And not only are you in the wrong Avri but liable for it on behalf of the GNSO and ICANN. I'm going to start pressing that button soon dear. And there will be no return once that happens. I've made ICANN squeal on more then one occassions - must we add another dear? >>> >>>>>>cheers >>>>>>joe baptista >>> >>>>>>On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: >>> >>>>>>Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much of what you say. However their are two people who were regular contributors suspended/censored from the list. There are no recognized monitors and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with nothing open and transparent. So your talk is not consistent with your actions as is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat. So you really do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability to do and say opposite things. >>> >>>>>>Using full headers reveals: >>> >>>>>>List-Id: >>>>>>List-Archive: >>>>>>List-Help: >>>>>>List-Owner: >>>>>>List-Post: >>>>>>List-Subscribe: >>>>>>List-Unsubscribe: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed >>> >>>>>>sorry for interrupting with technical info... >>> >>> >>>>>>--- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>From: Avri Doria >>>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >>>>>>To: "Governance List" >>>>>>Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>>>>it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to you. >>> >>>>>>I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. >>>>>>Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a regular basis. >>> >>>>>>The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it regularly. >>> >>> >>>>>>I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me. That is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. >>> >>>>>>In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something. Until then, I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. >>> >>>>>>a. >>> >>> >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>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 >>> >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>Joe Baptista >>> >>>www.publicroot.org >>>>>>PublicRoot Consortium >>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >>>>>> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >>> >>>>>>Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >>> >> > > >-- >Joe Baptista > >www.publicroot.org >PublicRoot Consortium >---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > >Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > > >________________________________ >Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how. >____________________________________________________________ >> >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 > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Jul 30 20:18:46 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:18:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <270944.30102.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907300645g77929b28vc7400526beb6992@mail.gmail.com> <1F961D7F-BFBB-41E3-83DA-131557356C29@acm.org> <874c02a20907301045ga270baej3d845c66901bd89a@mail.gmail.com> <627711.32924.qm@web58903.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907301329k445af854t2bf4f0266f010a26@mail.gmail.com> <270944.30102.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20907301718v3b6c2cc8m2417efefd2d6aa95@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, David Goldstein < goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote: > It's hardly surprising you get treated as a child when you carry on with > this behaviour. And no, I'd never level such an accusation against Avri. > > Maybe start acting like an adult and people will treat you like one. > No - the best way to deal with is to behave as a child. Avri has already gotten plenty of grown up behavior and has been non responsive - now the time is coming to apply the boot. cheers joe baptista p.s. arguing with me is pointless. > > > David > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Joe Baptista > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein < > goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> > *Sent:* Friday, 31 July, 2009 6:29:22 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > > Forgive me - for a moment I was under the impression you were talking of > Avri. Since childish behavior is definitely what is going on here. When > people don't listen anymore treating them as children appropriately places > them in their proper places. > > So Avri - baby - whats going on here - why am I still being censored? > > regards > joe baptista > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:29 PM, David Goldstein < > goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> How old are you Joe? 12 years old or thereabouts? Your childish behaviour >> and comments would suggest so. >> >> David >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Joe Baptista >> *To:* Avri Doria >> *Cc:* Governance List >> *Sent:* Friday, 31 July, 2009 3:45:51 AM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Once you get into legal threats, I am forced into silence. >> >> >> I'm not threatening you - I'm spelling out the facts. Before I would even >> consider court I'll kick your ass in the best court of all time. That of >> public opinion baby. >> >> Now I am being censored and thats not nice. Reinstate me. Thats an order >> baby. I was kicked off the list for exposing a bit of ICANN fraud between >> the former monitor and icann staff. Fine - big deal - I got an unauthorized >> vacation and you participated in an immoral act against me which very well >> was libelous and slanderous. That was you call honey. Not mine :) >> >> cheers >> joe baptista >> >> >>> >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> On 30 Jul 2009, at 15:45, Joe Baptista wrote: >>> >>> I completely agree with Eric. And not only are you in the wrong Avri but >>>> liable for it on behalf of the GNSO and ICANN. I'm going to start pressing >>>> that button soon dear. And there will be no return once that happens. I've >>>> made ICANN squeal on more then one occassions - must we add another dear? >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> joe baptista >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Lucy Lynch >>>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: >>>> >>>> Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much of what you say. >>>> However their are two people who were regular contributors >>>> suspended/censored from the list. There are no recognized monitors and the >>>> majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with nothing >>>> open and transparent. So your talk is not consistent with your actions as >>>> is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental process is backroom >>>> and by fiat. So you really do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and >>>> ability to do and say opposite things. >>>> >>>> Using full headers reveals: >>>> >>>> List-Id: >>>> List-Archive: >>>> List-Help: >>>> List-Owner: >>>> List-Post: >>>> List-Subscribe: >>> ?subject=subscribe%20governance> >>>> List-Unsubscribe: >>>> >>>> >>>> so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed >>>> >>>> sorry for interrupting with technical info... >>>> >>>> >>>> --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Avri Doria >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >>>> To: "Governance List" >>>> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up >>>> to you. >>>> >>>> I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and >>>> remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. >>>> Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a >>>> regular basis. >>>> >>>> The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it >>>> regularly. >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list >>>> anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on >>>> ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the >>>> GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the >>>> list as out of scope for me. That is, I do not see my responsibility as >>>> being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling >>>> what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from >>>> DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN >>>> already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not >>>> about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a list or >>>> wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those >>>> on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. >>>> >>>> In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can >>>> hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At that point I >>>> will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list >>>> to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my >>>> responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something. Until then, >>>> I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and >>>> nothing more. >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joe Baptista >>>> >>>> www.publicroot.org >>>> PublicRoot Consortium >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, >>>> Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >>>> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >>>> >>>> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Baptista >> >> www.publicroot.org >> PublicRoot Consortium >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative >> & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how >> . >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > > ------------------------------ > Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how > . > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Jul 30 20:54:06 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:54:06 -0400 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <4A720130.1070801@gmail.com> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907300645g77929b28vc7400526beb6992@mail.gmail.com> <1F961D7F-BFBB-41E3-83DA-131557356C29@acm.org> <874c02a20907301045ga270baej3d845c66901bd89a@mail.gmail.com> <4A720130.1070801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20907301754s3abc969fw91a9b03ef850d33f@mail.gmail.com> Kindly provide the warnings on list please. I see nothings wrong with my email and would ask your kindness and assistance in what specifically you find offensive in the message. The message is friendly - I even call her baby. It's all sugar and space as far as I can see. Avri has to answer for her errors. And I have every reasons to be angry to what amounts to another ICANN scam - my censorship. However I'm being kind with the usual kiss ass attitude that passes for civil behavior here. And frankly - forgive the rudeness but I don't give a fuck if you ban me from this list. If I have something to say there are people who will communicate it on my behalf. Censor away baby ... show the world your stuff :) Inclusive - NOT! cheers joe baptista On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Dear Joe Baptista, > > Following the charter of the Internet Governance Caucus, (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) and acting as co-coordinators of the IGC, > we hereby formally warn you that you are in breach of the charter with the > posting of the below email, which, combined with your previous posting on > the same thread, we perceive to be an attack on a member of the IGC as the > point is addressed in an aggressive and provocative manner, it is an issue > with clear personal overtones, and is an issue that is not appropriately > addressed on the IGC list, as it deals with the internal functions of > another body. > > I have copied a section of the charter immediately below for your > reference. This decision was made by IGC coordinators Ian Peter and Ginger > Paque, and has the support of formal complaints from the IGC membership. > > Sincerely, > > Ginger Paque and Ian Peter > Co-coordinators, Internet Governance Caucus > > Mailing lists will be run according to netiquette guidelines. One guideline > reference for IGC netiquette is RFC1855. One useful guideline for all list > participants is: > Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive. You > should not send heated message("flames") even if you are provoked. On the > other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent > not to respond to flames.. > > Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > *No personal insults > *No spam > > Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in suspension or > removal from the IGC list according to the following process: > The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem > If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber > publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will > include only posting rights. > If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended > for one (1) month. > Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem will > result in another public warning. > If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public > warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting > rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. > Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove someone > from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder advisory > group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process as defined > here. > > > Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Once you get into legal threats, I am forced into silence. > > > I'm not threatening you - I'm spelling out the facts. Before I would even > consider court I'll kick your ass in the best court of all time. That of > public opinion baby. > > Now I am being censored and thats not nice. Reinstate me. Thats an order > baby. I was kicked off the list for exposing a bit of ICANN fraud between > the former monitor and icann staff. Fine - big deal - I got an unauthorized > vacation and you participated in an immoral act against me which very well > was libelous and slanderous. That was you call honey. Not mine :) > > cheers > joe baptista > > >> >> >> a. >> >> On 30 Jul 2009, at 15:45, Joe Baptista wrote: >> >> I completely agree with Eric. And not only are you in the wrong Avri but >>> liable for it on behalf of the GNSO and ICANN. I'm going to start pressing >>> that button soon dear. And there will be no return once that happens. I've >>> made ICANN squeal on more then one occassions - must we add another dear? >>> >>> cheers >>> joe baptista >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Lucy Lynch >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: >>> >>> Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much of what you say. >>> However their are two people who were regular contributors >>> suspended/censored from the list. There are no recognized monitors and the >>> majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. but with nothing >>> open and transparent. So your talk is not consistent with your actions as >>> is the case generally with the GNSO. Your governmental process is backroom >>> and by fiat. So you really do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and >>> ability to do and say opposite things. >>> >>> Using full headers reveals: >>> >>> List-Id: >>> List-Archive: >>> List-Help: >>> List-Owner: >>> List-Post: >>> List-Subscribe: >> ?subject=subscribe%20governance> >>> List-Unsubscribe: >>> >>> >>> so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed >>> >>> sorry for interrupting with technical info... >>> >>> >>> --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Avri Doria >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >>> To: "Governance List" >>> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it is up to >>> you. >>> >>> I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up and >>> remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. >>> Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on a >>> regular basis. >>> >>> The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read it >>> regularly. >>> >>> >>> I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that list >>> anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish to comment on >>> ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, without a decision of the >>> GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, I would see trying to change the >>> list as out of scope for me. That is, I do not see my responsibility as >>> being one of trying to make the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling >>> what the GA was meant to be before it was decimated in the transition from >>> DNSO to GNSO without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN >>> already usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not >>> about to become one of them If the list wants to be more then a list or >>> wants to spin off real organizations then it is the responsibility of those >>> on that list to do so, and I would not hinder that effort. >>> >>> In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council (I can >>> hear some people already rejoicing in the background!). At that point I >>> will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, if I want that list >>> to be something more then a basket for complaints then it will be become my >>> responsibility as a member of the list to try and do something. Until then, >>> I am just one of the caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and >>> nothing more. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joe Baptista >>> >>> www.publicroot.org >>> PublicRoot Consortium >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, >>> Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >>> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >>> >>> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Jul 30 20:59:33 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:59:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] anyway - before i get banned - some inside information on rod beckstrom - enjoy :) Message-ID: <874c02a20907301759i7fa10a33od0c0b28767bd439a@mail.gmail.com> http://joebaptista.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/beckstrom-the-new-icann-president-brings-china-back-to-the-table/ Thats one thumbs up for Beckstrom. But will he survive? This year the clowns are visiting ICANN. Time to break up the myth - end the fiction and close down the ICANN scam. And what better way to do it but with clowns. cheers joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jul 30 21:06:27 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:06:27 +1000 Subject: [governance] Formal warning to Joe Baptista re personal insults and abusive language In-Reply-To: <874c02a20907301718v3b6c2cc8m2417efefd2d6aa95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Joe, Following from the private email sent to you earlier today by Ginger Paque as regards your postings on the list, I am now following up with a formal warning . If you continue to post items including personal insults and abusive language., you will be suspended from the list. Most people would believe that your threat to ³apply the boot² to a list member would fall into this category. This came after our warning for using phrases such as ³I¹ll kick your ass² and describing a list members behaviour as libellous and slanderous. This followed a number of complaints from list members. There will be no more warnings ­ as you say, arguing with you is pointless and I urge other list members to not respond to these sorts of postings. I want to make entirely clear that this is not about opinions you might have or want to express. It¹s about the use of personal insults and abusive language. The relevant section of the charter is below. Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators. Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in suspension or removal from the IGC list according to the following process: The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will include only posting rights. If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended for one (1) month. Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem will result in another public warning. If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. On 31/07/09 10:18 AM, "Joe Baptista" wrote: >> > > No - the best way to deal with is to behave as a child. Avri has already > gotten plenty of grown up behavior and has been non responsive - now the time > is coming to apply the boot. > > cheers > joe baptista > > p.s. arguing with me is pointless. >   >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nhklein at gmx.net Thu Jul 30 21:04:14 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:04:14 +0700 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <874c02a20907301718v3b6c2cc8m2417efefd2d6aa95@mail.gmail.com> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <270944.30102.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907301718v3b6c2cc8m2417efefd2d6aa95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200907310804.14292.nhklein@gmx.net> On Friday, 31 July 2009 07:18:46 Joe Baptista wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, David Goldstein < > > goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > It's hardly surprising you get treated as a child when you carry on with > > this behaviour. And no, I'd never level such an accusation against Avri. > > > > Maybe start acting like an adult and people will treat you like one. > > No - the best way to deal with is to behave as a child. Avri has already > gotten plenty of grown up behavior and has been non responsive - now the > time is coming to apply the boot. > > cheers > joe baptista > > p.s. arguing with me is pointless. Joe, thanks for your p.s. - I take it as your rationally and publicly suggested reason why you should not be on this or any other list: they are for exchanging arguments. Norbert -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial: Comparing Notes and Actions - Sunday, 26.7.2009 http://tinyurl.com/mlwlra (To read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Jul 30 21:39:42 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:39:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Formal warning to Joe Baptista re personal insults and abusive language In-Reply-To: References: <874c02a20907301718v3b6c2cc8m2417efefd2d6aa95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20907301839j5171b80fqda7a0b2b0d521e8a@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Dear Joe, > > Following from the private email sent to you earlier today by Ginger Paque > as regards your postings on the list, I am now following up with a formal > warning . If you continue to post items including personal insults and > abusive language., you will be suspended from the list. > I understand. censor away :) > > > Most people would believe that your threat to “apply the boot” to a list > member would fall into this category. This came after our warning for using > phrases such as “I’ll kick your ass” and describing a list members behaviour > as libellous and slanderous. > It is. But has nothing to do with this list - it is her conduct on another list. And it may very well be criminal. Remember ICANN is a United States Government contractor. As for kicking her ass. I did not say that or at least misspoke. I am engineering a situation that will kick ICANNs ass. I assure you sir I would only kick Avris ass if she begged me too. If of course Avri enjoys the more eclectic forms of S&M. > This followed a number of complaints from list members. > I'm sure you've been swamped. Please keep a copy of all email archived. I would like a copy of the complaints and reserve all rights in this. > > > There will be no more warnings – as you say, arguing with you is pointless > and I urge other list members to not respond to these sorts of postings. > exactly. > > > I want to make entirely clear that this is not about opinions you might > have or want to express. It’s about the use of personal insults and abusive > language. > > The relevant section of the charter is below. > > Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co-coordinators. > > > Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > *No personal insults > *No spam > Good rules. I agree to abide by them and thanks for pointing them out. > > > Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in suspension or > removal from the IGC list according to the following process: > netiquette is not law. > > The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem > i prefer public. If you should have future complaints I believe they should be public. I find this back door approach of yours repulsive to sensibility and common sense. If your going to point out an error do it in public for me. Consider that a standing order. > If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber > publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will > include only posting rights. > If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended > for one (1) month. > OK - a one month vacation - excellent - so I get another warning before execution. Am I correct in my interpretation? > > Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem will > result in another public warning. > good I like the due process. > > If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public > warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting > rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. > well let's see how long it takes me to get to three months :) or banned for life. it's a bit like a game. And where is all the democracy in this? You know why I ask. I want to appeal your decision and I want the two of you on the phone as I dictate my appeal. How do we do this. I'm into accountability. And I'm worried this decision of yours may be tainted. Thats what happened to us at the GA. A U.S. Government contractor hijacked a process and ended up embarrassed they were caught out. An ICANN employee tried to get myself the GA monitor and another monitor - Debbie and Hugh to get ride of a member on a vexatious complaint. When Debbie could not get the member removed on the complaint she went renegade and kicked the member off - with Avri's help - and I made public the complaint - which shocked everyone. Then Avri censored me from the list. Without due process agreed to between the montors and the chair. Are you getting the picture here big guy. I don't intend to sue you - but I do consider those complaint to be possibly relevant. Avri - 24 hours to get me on the GA list. cheers joe baptista > > > On 31/07/09 10:18 AM, "Joe Baptista" wrote: > > > > No - the best way to deal with is to behave as a child. Avri has already > gotten plenty of grown up behavior and has been non responsive - now the > time is coming to apply the boot. > > cheers > joe baptista > > p.s. arguing with me is pointless. > > > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Jul 30 21:47:08 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:47:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <200907310804.14292.nhklein@gmx.net> References: <188887.80736.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <270944.30102.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <874c02a20907301718v3b6c2cc8m2417efefd2d6aa95@mail.gmail.com> <200907310804.14292.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: <874c02a20907301847x7fc5f730x832f6941a6f9c81d@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > thanks for your p.s. - I take it as your rationally and publicly suggested > reason why you should not be on this or any other list: they are for > exchanging arguments. No thats not correct. Most of the arguments I see here are pointless. Most of them I've seen. It's the same old pointless expanse of bureaucracies. Most of the people here are babes in the wood when it comes to the Internet. You simply don't understand what it is your playing with. It's big bomb in which most of your discussion are useless - when it comes to the icann function. I should stress that is key. There are other avenues of discussion which board on useful and in some cases they worth while. But the icann function which I specialize in is useless and so are most of the endless babel that goes with it. In the end the root is user controlled. It's that simple. If you guys plan to have relevant argument that should be your goal. But most of you need an education - even some of the finest technicians here on the internet before your discussion are useful. babes in the woods. cheers joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 12:08:08 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:08:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype Message-ID: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a service to be left to the market... I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this (or at least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion topic for the next Internet Governance Forum... How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global interest and introduce some means to ensure its survival? MBG -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 6:13 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype Begin forwarded message: From: Bill Daul Date: July 31, 2009 7:20:29 AM EDT To: Dave Farber Subject: Shock threat to shut Skype Asher Moses July 31, 2009 - 1:38PM eBay says it may have to shut down Skype due to a licensing dispute with the founders of the internet telephony service. The surprise admission puts a cloud over the 40 million active daily users around the world who use Skype for business or to keep in touch with friends and far-flung relatives. A recent study by market researcher TeleGeography found Skype carried about 8 per cent of all international voice traffic, making it the world's largest provider of cross-border voice communications. The online auction powerhouse bought Skype from entrepreneurs Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis for $US2.6 billion in 2005, but this did not include a core piece of peer-to-peer communications technology that powers the software. <..> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/shock-threat-to-shut-skype-2009073 1-e3qe.html -- Bill Daul Chief Collaboration Officer NextNow Collaboratory: a synergistic web of relationships focused on transforming the present http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow http://www.nextnow.net -- NN Network Blog http://www.nextnow.org -- NN Collaboratory Blog ================================== "Play with boundaries, not within." -- Bill Daul Chief Collaboration Officer NextNow Collaboratory: a synergistic web of relationships focused on transforming the present http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow http://www.nextnow.net -- NN Network Blog http://www.nextnow.org -- NN Collaboratory Blog ================================== "Play with boundaries, not within." Archives !DSPAM:2676,4a72ede325631738712442! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 12:15:25 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:15:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a > service to be left to the market... no > > I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this (or at > least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion topic for the > next Internet Governance Forum... > > How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global interest > and introduce some means to ensure its survival? eBay spent 2.6 B USD on this thing...do you think they will actually shut it down? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 12:18:17 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:18:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> Message-ID: Do you have any information about the other side of the story? This seems to be the eBay side. It would be good to know why this happened. And yes - PLEASE let's try to do something Deirdre 2009/7/31 Michael Gurstein : > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a > service to be left to the market... > > I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this (or at > least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion topic for the > next Internet Governance Forum... > > How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global interest > and introduce some means to ensure its survival? > > MBG > >  -----Original Message----- > From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 6:13 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype > Begin forwarded message: > From: Bill Daul > Date: July 31, 2009 7:20:29 AM EDT > To: Dave Farber > Subject: Shock threat to shut Skype > > Asher Moses > > July 31, 2009 - 1:38PM > > eBay says it may have to shut down Skype due to a licensing dispute with the > founders of the internet telephony service. > > The surprise admission puts a cloud over the 40 million active daily users > around the world who use Skype for business or to keep in touch with friends > and far-flung relatives. > > A recent study by market researcher TeleGeography found Skype carried about > 8 per cent of all international voice traffic, making it the world’s largest > provider of cross-border voice communications. > > The online auction powerhouse bought Skype from entrepreneurs Niklas > Zennstrom and Janus Friis for $US2.6 billion in 2005, but this did not > include a core piece of peer-to-peer communications technology that powers > the software. > > <..> > > http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/shock-threat-to-shut-skype-20090731-e3qe.html > > -- > > Bill Daul > > Chief Collaboration Officer > NextNow Collaboratory:  a synergistic web of relationships focused on > transforming the present > > http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow > http://www.nextnow.net  -- NN Network Blog > http://www.nextnow.org  -- NN Collaboratory Blog > ================================== > > "Play with boundaries, not within." > > -- > > Bill Daul > > Chief Collaboration Officer > NextNow Collaboratory:  a synergistic web of relationships focused on > transforming the present > > http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow > http://www.nextnow.net  -- NN Network Blog > http://www.nextnow.org  -- NN Collaboratory Blog > ================================== > > "Play with boundaries, not within." > > Archives > !DSPAM:2676,4a72ede325631738712442! > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 31 12:45:48 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:45:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> Message-ID: In message <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1 at userPC>, at 09:08:08 on Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global interest >and introduce some means to ensure its survival? You charge a sustainability subscription. (eBay's main problem with Skype is that they've failed to monetise it. Even within the eBay community, everyone still communicates using eBay's built-in messaging, rather then Skype). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 12:57:57 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:57:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Essential services. Certain political theories (namely social justice theories) consider some services as essential (i.e. providing the service outweighs other concerns, especially commercial ones). A very common example here is health care. In the case of such essential services, nationalization may ensure their continuation regardless of commercial, environmental, or other external pressures. According to proponents of such theories, these concerns are surpassed by the positive externalities that are deemed likely to result from ensuring the service's availability to everyone. Wikipedia: Public ownership (the question McTim, wasn't will they shut it down but rather should they be allowed to and if not who/how would this be prevented... (As you know commercial considerations quite frequently has led to the writing off/shutting down of otherwise viable goods/services with significant commercial potential (Canada is currently going through something related to that with the likely destruction of a significant portion of its technology innovation infrastructure through the dismemberment and selling off of Nortel...There are very strong pressures on the Canadian government to intervene to prevent this in support of the public interest... (Arguably, as a very significant infrastructure for interaction and communication globally particularly I think for civil society and the non-corporate sector the loss of Skype could cause significant harm to the global capacity for social and commercial innovation among other things... MBG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:15 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a > service to be left to the market... no > > I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this > (or at least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion > topic for the next Internet Governance Forum... > > How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global > interest and introduce some means to ensure its survival? eBay spent 2.6 B USD on this thing...do you think they will actually shut it down? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Jul 31 13:21:11 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <532535.2524.qm@web58903.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Michael et al, I can't agree it's essential. But there is a background to the story in the following report: EBay Building Software to Replace Skype Technology EBay Inc. is building new software to run its Skype Internet-calling service, a bid to sidestep a licensing dispute with Skype’s founders, who have threatened to take back the underlying technology. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aY840DkfmyKY David ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Gurstein To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Sent: Saturday, 1 August, 2009 2:57:57 AM Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype Essential services. Certain political theories (namely social justice theories) consider some services as essential (i.e. providing the service outweighs other concerns, especially commercial ones). A very common example here is health care. In the case of such essential services, nationalization may ensure their continuation regardless of commercial, environmental, or other external pressures. According to proponents of such theories, these concerns are surpassed by the positive externalities that are deemed likely to result from ensuring the service's availability to everyone. Wikipedia: Public ownership (the question McTim, wasn't will they shut it down but rather should they be allowed to and if not who/how would this be prevented... (As you know commercial considerations quite frequently has led to the writing off/shutting down of otherwise viable goods/services with significant commercial potential (Canada is currently going through something related to that with the likely destruction of a significant portion of its technology innovation infrastructure through the dismemberment and selling off of Nortel...There are very strong pressures on the Canadian government to intervene to prevent this in support of the public interest... (Arguably, as a very significant infrastructure for interaction and communication globally particularly I think for civil society and the non-corporate sector the loss of Skype could cause significant harm to the global capacity for social and commercial innovation among other things... MBG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:15 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a > service to be left to the market... no > > I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this > (or at least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion > topic for the next Internet Governance Forum... > > How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global > interest and introduce some means to ensure its survival? eBay spent 2.6 B USD on this thing...do you think they will actually shut it down? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail ____________________________________________________________ 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