[governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF

Thu Jul 16 22:17:56 EDT 2009

Hello All,

I have some comments, but my comments are not intended to invite further
debates at this final stage. I was focusing on Q3 and 6 and couldn't spend
time on other questions (nor on Q3 and 6 during the last three days), so on
this 'final' statement, these inputs are more of an expression than a
suggestion for further debate which may not be possible.

The caucus has incorporated parts of the ideas expressed as response to Q3
and 6 in the final statement which does reflect in various parts some of the
suggestions, but I feel that the final statement does not quite convey the
points as expressed.

Yes, as suggested by Ginger in one of her messages on Q3,  I could submit
the ideas expressed as my part of the response to Q6 (and Q3 which is
heavily condensed into an independent statement or append what is left out
to a statement that I submitted months ago
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=7and
request the Secretariat to replace the earlier statement with this new
elaborate statement, but I belive that the points raised are of common
concern rather than an individual's opinion.

Some comments on the IGC Statement below:

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I have pasted below an updated version, using the two latest suggestions
> for Q1, Bertrand's latest "expanded" text, the shortened form of Shiva's
> text, my latest offering on the "rights" text, now found in Q6, and Ken's
> recent changes. This is basically all of the latest compromises. I hope I
> have not missed anything.
>
> Please make any last comments within 12 hours--by 8:00 a.m. GMT July 17th.
> I have chosen 12 hours, hoping that will give everyone some waking hours. I
> ask that you comment on previous issues only. It is too late to bring up new
> issues. If you have new ideas, please make note and reserve them for an
> upcoming statement. This will be our contribution to the questionnaire.
>
> Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort on this. I am optimistic
> that we will be ready to start a call for consensus tomorrow at 8:00 GMT.
>
> Best, 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.

Yes.

> However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going process
> of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF meeting.

The "However.... IGF meeting" doesn't quite follow the first sentence, and
it doesn't convey anything clearly.

> 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.

Yes

> Overall, IGF's success will be judged by how much it managed to influence
> these real policy-making processes.

Yes

If this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF
> is moving towards fulfilling its mandate,

No, IGF still hasn't managed to begin influencing real policy processes.

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'

Yes

> and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy
> making.
>
> In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to ‘facilitate 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 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'.
>
> 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.

Yes

> 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.

The ideas expressed and implied in 'unconditionality'  are relevant in the
'Capacity Building' phase to ensure a FAIR diversity of participants and
their independence. Is the "Capacity Building program" known to wider
potential participants? Or does it continue to attract those with ties or at
least exposure to the most influential stakeholder groups?

>
> 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).

Regional Initiatives yes, but I have some concerns about national
initiatives, which in some countries could be 'initiatives' on which
national governments play a larger role than the rest of the stakeholders,
so input from the country would largely be position desired by the national
governments rather than be a multi stakholder position of the country.

>
> 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.

Yes

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,

Why particularly 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.

Regional and National processes need to be so designed as to contribute to
the Global IGF rather than fragment the IGF. If Regional or National
initiatives are to be expanded, IGF needs to think of IGF Regional
Secretariats and National Presence to ensure that there is stakholder
balance.

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.
>
> 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.

Yes.

> 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.

Yes, to some extent.

>
>
> 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 many 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.

While verbose responses to other questions have been allowed, the following
passages have not been incorporated in response to Q3 in order to keep this
brief? ( part of it has been taken as under repsonse to Q7 though it doesn't
fully convey the suggestion )

*As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. IGF does not have powers to
decide, not have the powers to recommend. This is a "design" aspect of the
IGF which may be largely preserved. At the same time it is observed that due
to this status of the IGF, the policy making process of National Governments
and Regional Governments have not sufficiently paid attention to the
deliberations at the IGF. The IGF brings together participants with
different expertise from various stakeholder groups from various geographic
regions around the world, who deliberate on Internet Governance issues but
these valuable and meaningful deliberations have not been systematically
channeled to contribute to the actual policy making process. IGF could
devise a system by which Session/Topic Reports could be generated to
summarize the positions of stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during
the IGF. Though this may not constitute to be a "recommendation" or a
"formal statement" from the IGF, such Session/Topic Reports could be
released under different topic headings and could become Reference Documents
to contribute to the National / Regional policy making process.

Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources from the IGF
Reference Papers on the relevant issues/topics while framing proposals for a
new policy / change of an existing policy related to Internet. The proposed
Reference documents could be on broad topics such as Security or Freedom of
Expression to outline the overall IGF position with sub-sections on
stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics such as a topic on Cloud
Computing or Social Networking. Such Documents would enable the National /
Regional Policy making process to comprehensively and readily understand the
"mood" of the IGF on a topic on which a certain legislation/ directive/
guideline is being considered. At present decisions are taken by governments
and by business corporations largely in isolation of the IGF deliberations,
without  taking into consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor consider the
solutions proposed by the IGF.

The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat considers
this as an action item and introduce a mechanism to thoroughly record as
audio-visuals collated with text transcripts and presentations to be
archives as source records of each panel discussion, workshop, roundtable,
open forum, or in any other format, in every room. In addition the
Secretariat may also assign neutral staff with synthesing skills to prepare
consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions. The IGF
Secretariat may also proactively reach out to Governments to urge them to
adopt it as a convention to call for IGF Position papers and related
documents to be used as inputs in their policy making process.
* *
*

> 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.

It is ok to focus so much on gender and geographic diverstity, but
substantive diversity and diversity of expertise is sometimes missed in the
process.

>
>
> ****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.

Regional MAGs or Regional MAG Working Groups? To ensure that the regional
and national events are also TRULY mutli-stakholder?

>
>
>
> ****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.

Yes.

>
>
> 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.

Yes

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.

Yes, this is what was detailed in the response omitted under Q3 copied
earlier as comment in this text.

>
>
> 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.

Yes.

> To this end we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no
> other UN organization in the IGF's management.

Yes, I fully agreee.

>
>
> 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.

Yes, a very good point.

>
>
> 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.
>
> Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations "where
> appropriate". This dimension of the IGF mandate should not be forgotten, but
> this does not necessarily mean traditional resolution drafting. The IGC
> believes that it is important in that respect for the outcomes of workshops
> and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be presented in more
> tangible, concise and result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also
> be encouraged to engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their
> interaction in the IGF in a manner that would facilitate their posting on
> the IGF web site, for instance under a specific heading.
>
>
> 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

The call for funding could be more effective if the following text wasn't so
much abbreviated. I still do not see any reason why it was excluded (with
the exception of one or two points:

   *The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat
   to fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and
   significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with
   greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be
   considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ 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 invite and
   include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment
   and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society
   causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social
   and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all
   governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for
   financial reasons, the present participants from Government are
   not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in
   parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly
   relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF
   do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions.
   This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but
   availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different
   classes of participants may help improve participation by those
   not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some
   funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries,
   but such funding achieves a limited objective.

   The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible
   costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments,
   organizations and individual participants) would be several times
   that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing
   the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist
   estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it
   would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a
   marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and
   participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true
   cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of
   participation are compromised.

   With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends
   that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations
   supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well
   funded non-governmental and international organizations and the
   United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable
   travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel
   speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are
   required to be well-received for participation), full and partial
   fellowships to a large 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 ).

   Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse
   opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to
   the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be
   built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to
   a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions
   about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply
   that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic
   conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the
   sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something
   larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF
   will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments,
   International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no
   implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)*
   and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally.
   It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have
   significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of
   participation.*

[ There has been a long discussion on this point at the list, for which I am
thankful.  In my clarifications I have said:

The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT realities
and the statement stems from a positive outlook unconstrained by the present
situation. Another million or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't
way beyond the reach of the IGF body.

1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a way to
find funds to answer thiso call.

2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF in
eternal poverty,

and

Does the fact that UN has provided the initial funding limit the IGF
Secrearaiat from acting as a Calalyst for a fund that is open for
contributions from Business, International Organizations, NGOs, Charitable
Trusts and individuals?

....the scale of funds sought from Member States on this area is not a
signifcant sum, and it may not be a buredn for Member States to commit and
grant the required funds, but if for some reason the process of debate at
the UN gets delayed on this action item, or if the decision is not full, the
need may at least be temporarily be unfulfilled. So the Caucus may find a
way to word this point in such a way that the idea of mutli-stakeholder
contribution to this mutlistakholder fund is mooted.

It does not sound right that IGF as a multi-stakholder forum is confined to
depend only on Governmental contributions.

The reasons for exluding this suggestion is unconvincing. What is allowed as
part of this final statement is not self-explanatory.]

> 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.
>
> Multilingualism has still to be improved in IGF procedures, notably for key
> documents disseminated by the IGF secretariat on its website, in order to
> increase participation and feedback from stakeholders.
>
>
> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>
> The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the
> Internet Governance agenda.

> Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a
> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda,

What is implied here?

> allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central
> obligation of the IGF.

same question as above.

What makes the IGC thinks that it is a central obligation of the IGF to
consider that the "rights-based" approach is the best possible course of
action to approach Internet Governance issues?

>
>
> 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.

This part is confused.

>
>
> 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.

Sorry, I disagree.

> 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.

Yes, but doesn't fully convey the point.

Thank you
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090717/3407411e/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