[governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text

[Ginger Paque]

Rebecca, very logical request. I should have re-sent the text. The final 
text is now below my plea for responses to the Call for Consensus.

Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF 
questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not have 
time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you should be 
considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus.

The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and offering 
the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This voice does not 
consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the questionnaire; it is 
the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open working group". However, 
the Call for Consensus is directed to the whole IGC.

Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to the 
Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the rest of the 
day (July 17th GMT). Thanks!

Best,
Ginger

IGC responses to IGF questionnaire, for consensus:

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.

In parallel, we would welcome sustained, cross-cutting efforts to
consider the linkages between Internet governance and development and
to evolve a development agenda for Internet governance, in keeping with
the Tunis mandate.

A reading of the Geneva Declaration of Principles shows repeated
mention of rights, yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give
rights and principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda,
allowing a minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central
obligation of the IGF.

The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of
openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize
the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet
governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access
the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with
current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of
the often confusing network neutrality discussions.

The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of
the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other.
Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should
govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.



3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has
it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it
acted as a catalyst for change?

The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of
discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed
that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was
during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the
IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels
that include business, government, academia and civil society working
together and exchanging ideas on various levels.

The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the
question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF
on participants, it can be seen that 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**

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 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.












Rebecca MacKinnon wrote:
> Thanks Ginger. I apologize that I've been unable to follow the traffic 
> or contribute. I must admit I'm confused about which text is the final 
> final version on which we're meant to comment. Can you please re-send it?
> Sorry for being a moron.
> Rebecca
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     Many people have worked very hard on the IGC response to the IGF
>     questionnaire. Some of you have followed silently, some did not
>     have time to follow. However, if you are receiving this email, you
>     should be considering sending your opinion to the Call for Consensus.
>
>     The Internet Governance Caucus, should be using its voice, and
>     offering the input that the IGF Secretariat is requesting. This
>     voice does not consist of 20-25 people who actively worked on the
>     questionnaire; it is the whole caucus. Think of this as the "open
>     working group". However, the Call for Consensus is directed to the
>     whole IGC.
>
>     Please take the time to review the final statement, and respond to
>     the Call for Consensus. The Call for Consensus is open for the
>     rest of the day (July 17th GMT). Thanks!
>
>     Best,
>     Ginger
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Rebecca MacKinnon
> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
> Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of 
> Hong Kong
>
> UK: +44-7759-863406
> USA: +1-617-939-3493
> HK: +852-6334-8843
> Mainland China: +86-13710820364
>
> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com <mailto:rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com>
> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
____________________________________________________________
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