[governance] IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15

[Roxana Goldstein]

thanks, ok for me dear Ginger!
Regards,
Roxana


2009/7/15 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090715/0f4f94c1/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