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

[Ian Peter]

YES from me


On 18/07/09 1:44 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 Œfacilitate
> 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 others¹ 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, regionalŠ 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 ³should be
> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
> organizations.² WSIS principles also state that IG ³should ensure an
> equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and
> ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into
> account multilingualism². Governments invoked these principles
> throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF
> to, ³promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> principles in Internet Governance processes.² 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
> government¹s 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 ³open Internet², 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: ²In 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.² 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 IGF¹s
> 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