[governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15

[Ian Peter]

A few comments, thanks so much Ginger for taking the lead on this

On 16/07/09 8:31 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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")

I'm happy with that.
> 
> **[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?

Still happy
> 
> **[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'.

Yes> 
> 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=Form
> alConsult032009) 
> 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?

Leave it in IMHO
> 
> 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."
> 

Yes I like Bill's text
> 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 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.
> 
> 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.]**
> 
> 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 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: 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