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

Roxana Goldstein goldstein.roxana at gmail.com
Fri Jul 17 16:44:01 EDT 2009 

Dear Ginger,
Can you add the "Red Interamericana de Formación en Gobierno
Electrónico-RIFGE /COLAM/OUI" to the list of organisations that agreed with
the text?
I copy José Luis Tesoro, the RIF-GE's Director.
Thanks!
Roxana
a little sandstone... i hope it helps :)

2009/7/17 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090717/4d1c358c/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

More information about the Governance mailing list