[governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement?

[Ginger Paque]

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