[governance] Last call for comments IGC questionnaire for IGF

[Maja Andjelkovic]

Please count my vote for the final text too.  Well done, and thank you,
Ginger.



2009/7/17 Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>

> 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 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
> >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090717/e8d8d3d1/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