[governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hello, thank you from me as well, Ginger. I support the text as is but 
like it better with the changes suggested by Bill.
jeanette

Natasha Primo wrote:
> Hello
> 
> Thank you Ian and Ginger particularly for an excellent job! Am happy 
> with the edits as noted below ... and also support the inclusion of 
> Bill's additional sentence to Q2.
> 
> Best,
> Natasha
> 
> 
> 
> On 16 Jul 2009, at 10:25 PM, Ginger Paque 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. 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, 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. 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.
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 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, 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.
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat 
>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text 
>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research 
>> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare 
>> consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ 
> 
> Natasha Primo
> National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative
> Association for Progressive Communications
> Johannesburg, South Africa
> Tel/Fax: +27118372122
> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
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