[governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire

Wed Nov 17 05:00:26 EST 2010

Dear all,

I will not oppose if everybody else agrees with the answer to number 9.

However, the answer to number 9, in my opinion, is against our own
interests.

1) It goes against the mandates of capacity building and the development
orientation of the Summit generally, and of the IGF especifically. c.f.
Tunis Agenda paragraphs 65, 72 small d, e, f and h.

2) In many discussions in the MAG around the number and the subjects of
workshops and other events, the conclusions have been:

2.1) Workshops and events allow to increase participation and attract
experts, who otherwise, will not go to the IGF.
2.2) They allow to channel new topics and trends into the IGF.
2.3) There have been already to my knowledge, a couple of IGF sessions,
where a deliberate effort has been made to couple workshops with main
sesions.
2.4) Public attending the IGF can make free choice about what workshops and
events to attend.

3) There are opportunities where all stakeholders can provide the IGF with
their points of view to improve the IGF and to set the agenda. As I have
participated in the discussions directly in the MAG, I know there have been
attempts to avoid sensitive issues, but all sensitive issues have made it to
the agenda and to the main sessions.

4) It goes against the awareness and capacity building required to achieve
EC.

I understand the origins of the suggested answer to number 9, but I will
suggest to strenghten and make effective the implementation of the mandatest
in paragraph 72 small b, c,g, i, j and k and also, the EC process.

Maybe, an answer to this dilemma is to point out to the need of resources to
the IGF and the need of commitment of all stakeholders in the IG eco-system
to deliver better.

To go further, I will suggest a contribution from the UN to the Voluntary
Fund of the IGF in as much as 20% of the previous year level of money raised
by the Voluntary Fund (I think it would be like 20% of around 900,000 Swiss
Francs but I will ask), representing the contribution of the whole humanity
to the process, and dedicated exclusively to awareness and capacity building
of all stakeholders in developing countries, used effectively by leveraging
the existing capacity building initiatives.

Governments and Private Sector should be invited to contribute to the
Voluntary Fund while thanking the past contributions.

Best,

Miguel

*Annexes*

*65. We underline the need to maximize the participation of developing
countries in decisions regarding Internet governance, which should reflect
their interests, as well as in development and capacity building.

*

*72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to
convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum
(IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:*

* *

   *
   1.

   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.
   2.

   Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting
   international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that
   do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
   3.

   Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
   institutions on matters under their purview.
   4.

   Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this
   regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and
   technical communities.
   5.

   Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
   availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
   6.

   Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or
   future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
   countries.
   7.

   Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
   bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.

   8.

   Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
   countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
   9.

   Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
   principles in Internet governance processes.
   10.

   Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
   11.

   Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of
   the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
   12.

   Publish its proceedings.
   *

*

*
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> Here follows and attached are the 2nd version of our draft answer to CSTD
> IGF questionnaire.
> Since the discussion only touched on Q1 and Q3, I put changes on these two
> points below. Added sentences and words are highlighted by yellow.
> A full version with hitory-on version in Word format is attached.
>
> As the deadline is approaching, I will ask Jeremy to put it into the poll
> shortly, but hope we can catch any immediate and strong comments and
> requests before doing so.
>
>
> 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. This emergence
> and development of the principle and practice of the multistakeholder model
> is perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. 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 with multistakeholder approach is
> another achievements.
>
> *Yet *We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process
> *we still have *has we still have not directly
> produced seen real tangible outcomes directly out of IGF process.
>
>
> 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.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where
> all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They 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.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster
> discussion and
> debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them.
>
> <snip>
>
> 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)<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process%29>).
>
> IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It
> should avoid providing
> standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to implement
> certain technologies
> or how these technologies work.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/7c0a39e9/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

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