[governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete

[Ian Peter]

This is really starting to take shape! A few comments below.



On 14/07/09 8:32 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> 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