[governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date

[Ginger Paque]

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" <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, 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