[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[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