[governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean

Thu Nov 18 07:51:12 EST 2010

Hi all,

I agree with Bill's point that the answer to question 2 is too dim, and 
I think too short.

My contribution this year's IGf book discusses the question of results 
or impacts of the global IGF in a more extensive way. Perhaps some of 
the points I made in my article could be used for our reply to question 
2 if they find consensus here? Feel free to cut and paste if that helps:

Here are a few quotes from my article:

*Although the IGF has not led to a convergence of expectations and views, it
has created a communicative space which in itself leaves an imprint on
further debates on the management of critical Internet resources. A 
first indicator of such changes can be seen in the fact that fundamental 
matters such as the legitimacy of the current political oversight 
arrangements have ceased to overshadow all other relevant aspects of 
Internet governance.

*While WSIS was essentially an intergovernmental process with additional 
multi-stakeholder provisions, the IGF is, as one of the speakers at the 
stock taking session in Sharm El-Sheikh characterized it, a "hybrid of 
U.N. intergovernmental and nongovernmental protocol and practice where 
individuals and institutions concerned with Internet governance and 
development gather". This hybrid creates a space "where all stakeholders 
feel comfortable, to the extent they can contribute meaningfully and 
openly in discussion, debate, and collaborative
planning with other stakeholders."6 As a result of this unique space, 
more attention is given to the operational but also the civil liberty 
dimension of Internet governance.

*The most important merit of the IGF so far might actually lie in the 
area of capacity building. Thanks to the IGF, a greater number of people 
today have a more comprehensive picture of the management of critical 
Internet resources, including the various interests and conflicting 
visions surrounding this field. (...)The specific charm of capacity 
building in the context of the IGF is that it works both ways. All 
information providers are at the same time information
recipients.

*A closer integration of the various rationalities and goals shaping 
Internet governance has been achieved and the actors involved may have a 
better sense of the interplay but also the inconsistencies between 
criteria of global legitimacy, practical requirements of the policy 
processes, and the logics of the market.

* Interestingly, the multi-stakeholder dialogue also undermines the
traditional distinction between technical and public policy issues in 
Internet governance that still shaped the thinking reflected in the 
Tunis Agenda. Discussing policy implications of technical decisions has 
become a common practice at the IGF.

*Thanks to the pragmatic focus of the discussions, the participants have
developed a level of confidence and ownership in the process that enable
public exchange even on controversial or complex aspects of the 
management of critical Internet resources. Considering how strong the 
original concerns were against putting the management of critical 
Internet resources, and thus ICANN, once again at centre stage, this is 
no small achievement.

jeanette

Am 18.11.2010 10:31, schrieb William Drake:
> Hi
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Sorry, but fwiw I disagree.  2) takes too dim a view of the IGF's contributions, 3) goes retro with a circa 2005 vision of recs that won't work and would turn IGF into WSIS II, 4) proposes work on misc. issues that would distract from drilling down into the key emerging challenges of global IG, 5) conflates capacity building and the development agenda concept, 8) the MAG uber alles model is too limiting, 9) we say nothing about preserving the secretariat.  On the first do no harm principle, I'd rather say nothing than say something that can be spun as supporting the G77 + China approach.  But I imagine the desire to just say something will prevail.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>> 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
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.williamdrake.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
____________________________________________________________
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