[governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF

Fri Jul 17 06:14:34 EDT 2009

I agree with this (and to the final text suggested by Bill

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Lohento [mailto:lohento at oridev.org] 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 3:36 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF

Hello

I support the text with the last addition suggested by Bill on linkages 
between development and IG

Thanks everyone.

KL

Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> 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 governments 
>>> 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 IGFs 
>>> 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
>
>

____________________________________________________________
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