[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[Ian Peter]

A few comments below (very few)


> 
> 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).

I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any clear
success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something
similaR
> 
> 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'.

I would make it "not been able to make any *significant* progress
> 
> 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 others¹ 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, regionalŠ 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 ³should be
> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an
> equitable
> distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable
> and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account
> multilingualism². 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 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.]

I would include this but happy to go either way
> 
> 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.
> 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 **[Bill¹s 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.**
> 
I agree lets delete

> €** 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 Bill¹s 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: ²In 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 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 IGF¹s
> 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