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

[Babatope Soremi]

Hi Ginger,
Kudos to the team that worked on putting together the text. I have read and
herewith state my support for the final version of the text as posted.

Apologies I could not be more actively involved in the process of preparing
this.

Best Regards

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Charity Gamboa <charityg at diplomacy.edu>wrote:

> Hi Ginger,
>
> I have been following this slowly and with all the many thread, I got a
> little confused. Sorry that I haven't had much time to really comment. I
> have been caught up with packing, In the previous thread, I read about
> remote participation included in the answers to the questionnaire. I'm with
> the idea of some sort of "funding" for IGF participants. But I have to admit
> to ignorance as to how to put that in a better way so I would rely on those
> who can bring that up well.  Those two issues on (remote participation and
> "funding") would be something I'd want included in the text. So after
> reading through this recent email you sent, I'm satisfied. Thank you to all.
>
> Great work, Ginger.
>
> Regards,
> Charity
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Renate! There is no reason for awkwardness at all!! The open,
>> informal "working group" worked to write the text. Now everyone should read
>> the text, and respond to the Call for Consensus. The questionnaire is going
>> out in your name too, so we should hear your expressed opinion.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ginger
>>
>>
>> Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ginger,
>>>
>>> A very comprehensive statement, well done! Like other lurking
>>> participants,
>>> who have not contributed, I feel a bit awkward, but happy nevertheless to
>>> give you my consent.
>>> Renate
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: vendredi, 17. juillet
>>> 2009 17:44
>>> To: Rebecca MacKinnon
>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque'
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus and IGC in the IGF process Final Text
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Babatope Soremi

I'm totally sold out to changing my world for good....


Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007

You can't give what you don't have........
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090717/40422c89/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