[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[Parminder]

>>
>> 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
>   
It is  a matter of fact. Not only IGF has not done above, it doesnt have 
any structure adequate to this purpose. This is also mostly recognized 
even within the IGF as something to ponder about, and hints about this, 
and the issues below on clear outcomes were thrown at the concluding 
session of Hyderabad IGF. In fact much more than hints, the chair seems 
to have clearly said something to the effect that if wont be enough if 
we just keep to discussing things and that we may need to move forward. 
And most participants seemed to be veering around to this viewpoint. (My 
comments here cover 72b and c and also 72 e and g below).

Admittedly, how to do it is still not very clear, but if we start 
diluting the imperative we certainly wont make any progress. One thing I 
cant understand is that why we as civil society - generally a voice of 
the 'outsiders' and the 'less heard' - need to be so diplomatic. Civil 
society is expected to present clear, rational, and, if needed 
hard-hitting, critiques. I think we are trying to be unnecessarily coy 
here, and in any such attempt will miss the point entirely.

>> 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
>   

Same here. We are not writing a resolution for the UN Secy General to 
sign. We are writing a civil society statement of review of a key global 
governance institution. It needs to be clear and bold. We said good 
things about IGF boldly, and not so good things need to stated as 
boldly. We need to say clearly what we think and feel. If we are saying 
'no significant progress has been made', we need to be able to show what 
'less than significant' progress on these specific counts are we 
speaking about. Fact is that there is no structural form within the IGF 
right now to do this set of functions, and the IGF is still struggling 
with this. If civil society doesnt clearly bring this fact out who will.


>> 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, regionalS( 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]EUR 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
>
>   
>> EUR** 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.
>> EUR 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.
>> EUR 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.
>>
>> EUR 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.
>>
>> EUR 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]EUR 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.**
>>     
>
>   
>> EUR 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.
>>
>> EUR 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
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090715/4176a1c9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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