[governance] IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15

[Ginger Paque]

Hello, all...

We are not going to make the deadline of midnight GMT today, but I have 
asked the Secretariat for an extension, and Markus Kummer has said we 
may have a short extension. Current proposed text follows at the bottom 
with the controversial sections marked with **[ ]

Please opine as soon as possible, trying to give concrete options or 
suggestions for solutions if you can.

I think that Natasha's, Roxana's and Jean-Louis's concerns have already 
been dealt with in the text or below, please re-state if not... sorry if 
I missed something or misinterpreted. Please let me know.

So... correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that there are four 
areas still under discussion. There may be other points that I did not 
catch.

1)
Q1: **[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). ]**

Could we say: (I think this is somewhat stronger than Ian's: IGF "may 
need to extend its efforts in")

**[In this connection, the IGF MUST EXTEND ITS EFFORTS 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). ]**

AND can everyone accept this wording, or suggest another?

**[IGF has also not been able to make any SIGNIFICANT 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'.

2)
Q2 the issue of rights, particularly:
**[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.]**

Note that the at question 2, the questionnaire itself 
http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009) 
has a link to the WSIS declaration of principles 
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 articles 
of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I agree with 
Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs?

3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??,
Q6 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.]

or change to Bill's suggestion of:

"Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where 
appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the 
requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC 
members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly 
favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of 
recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have 
colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it 
is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder 
dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate 
and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's 
unique character."

4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options--
(Q6 also)
A) that we use this shortened version:

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.

B) or this version, with "unconditional" changed to "that are free from 
censorship or restrictions on content":

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.

There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF 
participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly 
qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments, but it is also true 
that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more 
Civil Society participants known for their commitment and 
accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. 
And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant 
segments and geographic regions. We mention in particular: Indigenous 
peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and 
particularly those who are the poorest of
the poor, 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. Funding possibilities need 
to be improved availability of various categories of travel grants for 
participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the 
IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for 
representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves 
a limited objective.

With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the 
IGF consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, 
governments, well funded non-governmental and international 
organizations and the United Nations THAT ARE FREE FROM CENSORSHIP OR 
RESTRICTIONS ON CONTENT. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead 
participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial 
fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention 
to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic 
regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from 
affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need).

Or C: 'funds with no explicit or hidden undue conditionalities' for that 
qualification.



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.

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?

The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be 
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of 
governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
organizations.” WSIS principles also state that IG “should ensure an 
equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and 
ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into 
account multilingualism”. Governments invoked these principles 
throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF 
to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS 
principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has 
not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of 
its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated 
programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss 
government’s statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should 
be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions.

We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of 
those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis 
Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a 
code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - 
Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a 
building block for such an effort.

**[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. 
Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a 
significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of 
voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]**

The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 
openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize 
the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet 
governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access 
the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with 
current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of
the often confusing network neutrality discussions.

The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of 
the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. 
Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should 
govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.


3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has 
it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it 
acted as a catalyst for change?

The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of 
discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed 
that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was 
during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the 
IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels 
that include business, government, academia and civil society working 
together and exchanging ideas on various levels.

The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the 
question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF 
on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or 
organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in 
turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder 
groups.

In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your 
involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has 
your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has 
assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the 
multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any 
particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the 
IGF.

The Internet Governance Forum is also 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-stakeholder 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**

•Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder 
advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. 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 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.

• 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.

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.

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:

The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where 
the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive 
participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current 
operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of 
rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, 
remote participation including transcription and archiving.

And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: ”In building the 
Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special 
needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including 
migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees,
unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We 
shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with 
disabilities.” We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, 
rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and 
often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer 
and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, 
those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of 
responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and 
those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the 
Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and 
social development.

This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and 
processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF’s 
inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current 
practices, technology support opportunities, changed international 
financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be 
appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a 
single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other 
Internet governance
institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and 
engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which 
global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere 
rather than the single element in the process.

Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should 
more clearly
support participation by individuals and organizations with few 
resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing 
options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into 
consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and 
sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and 
advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and 
lodging that is competitive and convenient.

The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the 
support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, 
in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be 
complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the 
Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting.

**[Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more 
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC 
contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does 
not prove its value to the international community by adopting 
mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet 
public policy issues.]

**[The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to 
provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be 
used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater 
diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG 
activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for 
example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender.]

7. Do you have any other comments?

The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat 
introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text 
transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research 
resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare 
consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance