[governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements

[McTim]

Pretty good reply overall.

I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
directly out of IGF process."

As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It is my (our) mistake not to consult this with you earlier. But things are
> never
> too late, I hope.
>
> We have to submit our response to the Questionnaire on improvements to the
> IGF
> by Friday, Nov 19, for the CSTD open consultation meeting on Nov 24.
>
> I tried to write the draft as follows. I know it's premature, but hope you
> could
> help refine them quickly.
>
> Those CSTD WG nominees, please react quickly! but others, also, please.
>
> I plan to come to the final draft on Wednesday and put it to the consensus
> call,
> so that we can submit it on Friday.
>
> I also attach a Word file for convenience. If you so wish, please use the
> "history" function to offer your edits.
>
> In case we may not reach sufficient consensus, we may submit a
> non-controversial version first, and then work on with you until the
> meeting day and submit a revised one there aurally and with text
> to CSTD secretariat. This time it's the first "informal" consultation
> and the formal one will come on December and onward.
>
> CSTD Nov 24 meeting is now announced here:
> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5726&lang=1
>
> hope this is OK with you,
>
> izumi
>
> ----------------
>
> DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> [Texts in Bold face are our response]
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
> IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive
> manner. It helped
> many participants to understand the issues of their interest, as well as to
> understand how other
> actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of Regional and
> National IGF is
> another achievements. Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
> directly out of IGF process.
>
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of discussions at
> the IGF and the
> impact they have had on developments in national, regional or international
> Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the issues.
> Yet, at national,
> regional and international levels, we have mixed assessment for the impact
> it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of
> the IGF
> discussions, in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and
> other stakeholders?
> Please specify the kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges,
> recommendations, concrete
> advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other
> fora dealing with Internet
> Governance, etc.).
>
> One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of recommendations
> where
> all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. It will not be binding, but could
> still function as model,
> reference or common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus
> will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.
>
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning Internet
> governance have
> emerged or become important since the Tunis phase of the Summit, which
> deserve more attention
> in the next five years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning the
> marginalized groups
> or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of work at IGF and its outcome.
> These may not be the
> “new” issues, but we strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such as
> cloud computing;
> user-generated, SNS and online sharing services such as wiki, YouTube,
> Ustream, twitter and
> Facebook; DPI and behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of
> mobile services
> including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of new challenges
> for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work of the
> IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
> think.
>
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all
> organizations and fora dealing with Internet governance – such as ICANN,
> W3C, IETF, RIRs,
> ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD, UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well represented at
> the IGF be improved?
> In particular, what could be done to improve the capacity of representatives
> from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors from
> developing countries
> to continuously engage in IGF and related organizations and meetings.
> Fellowship works carried
> out by DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions
> offer good reference for this, but they should be expanded in larger scale.
> Targeting youth groups
> or younger generation in profession, will have, in the long run, effective
> impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training to
> engineers will also help
> close the gap(s) within the under-represented and also even
> well-represented.
>
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and the IGF
> process can
> be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected by Internet governance but
> who are not yet
> part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making more
> direct “links” to the
> main IGF meeting will help outreach to those who have not yet involved in
> IGF process. Securing
> the same level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion
> of civil society groups (where such practice is relatively new or scarce)
> should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also
> be effective in reaching out to those yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously
> (ie. in real time) and asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the
> Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs, Twitter,
> mailing lists, Facebook
> and so on over an extended period may also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level playing
> field” among all participants,
> and may also demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and
> may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings
> and occasions as main working language (translated into other UN languages)
> will increase the
> outreach to non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more
> sense of ownership.
> Currently, English is the only default working language, but we think it
> does not have to be so.
>
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process (including the format
> of the meeting, the
> preparatory process, the development of the agenda, etc.) needs to change to
> meet changing
> circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF primarily
> by MAG should
> be improved. More outcome oriented direction might improve the quality and
> value of IGF, but
> this should be carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free
> spirit of IGF which
> contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the
> Note by the
> Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum
> (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the formal
> consultations held
> online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt in 2009
> (http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)).
>
> [ANY COMMENTS? ]
>
> --------------------------
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t