[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[Natasha Primo]

Hello All,

On 14 Jul 2009, at 5:55 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> 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.]

I agree with the reformulation. Lets keep it here.
>
> 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.**

as its current practice, i agree we 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.

yes
>
> **[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.

agree on the suggested deletions
>
> 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

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ 
\//\\//\/
Natasha Primo
National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative
Association for Progressive Communications
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tel/Fax: +27118372122
Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo








____________________________________________________________
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