[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[Ginger Paque]

Thanks, Ian, for both of your emails. I agree, if we need clarification 
on this and other details, it should be done soon, because we are close 
to our deadline.

As I mentioned earlier, I will be traveling tomorrow, and will not be 
back online until 15:00 GMT. So it would help if those who have comments 
could propose actual text, and discuss it.

Thanks everybody, for your time and energy. Best, Ginger

Ian Peter wrote:
> One more comment -
>
> The text includes
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> BILL DRAKE COMMENTED
> "Over the years many IGC members have argued against this but are not
> participating in this discussion now.  Are we going to go ahead and
> say this on the "you snooze, you lose" principle?
>
> I certainly do not support the proposition that the IGF can only prove
> its value through recommendations."
>
> While being ambivalent about whether we should include something about non
> binding statements or not, I certainly don't think that IGF can only prove
> its value through recommendations so I agree this needs to be better
> expressed if we include something here and would also oppose the current
> wording.
>
> But on the bigger question -  do we want to suggest development of
> mechanisms for producing non binding statements? I suspect we are divided
> here but it would be good to have a few comments, particularly from those
> who do not think this is a good idea, so we can decide whether anything
> along these lines should be included.
>
>
>
> On 15/07/09 7:10 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> 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
>>     
>
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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