[governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean

Izumi AIZU iza at anr.org
Thu Nov 18 04:25:44 EST 2010 

Dear Wolfgang,

Thank you for your input. Procedurally, it is too late to change the text
for the Final draft.

For 3.a)
We can still continue the debate, though, for the next round of interventions,
maybe try to emphasize what we mean by "recommendations" and then
might change - if we all agree - to "message" or other expression.

As I mentioned we are just in the early phase of consultation.

6 a)
Adding ISOC should be no problem as I think it's a friendly amendment.

9
Again, your suggestion is attractive, but is more less substantial addition
that is better to ask others to discuss before making it final, hence for the
next round. I mean "clearing house or watchdog upon what" may require
good definition agreed.

izumi


2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
> Hi everybody
>
> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>
> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
> an excercise.
>
> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
> ________________________________
>
> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>
>
>
> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>
> Thanks!
>
> izumi
>
> ------------
>
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> 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. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are 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
> achievement.
>
> 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.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> 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.
>
> 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 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?
>
> No.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list