[governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date

Sun Jul 12 16:48:49 EDT 2009

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" <gpaque at gmail.com> 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
> 
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