[governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version

[Imran Ahmed Shah]

Dear Izumi and all list members.
My inputs/comments are as as follows, (with the lable IAS: next to each related 
para)
and there are some additional items, listed with remarks.
Thanks
Imran 

________________________________
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Thu, 18 November, 2010 7:13:08
Subject: [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.
IAS: agreed

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.
IAS:      Although a very light term is used, “mixed assessment”, but 
Acceptable.

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.
IAS:      I would suggest an alternate para: 
One mechanism we can suggest that “Solutions & Recommendations 
regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through 
consensus. The outcomes of the consensus will not be binding but would be 
recommended to stakeholders to be followed. This model of consensus 
with better & deeper understanding amongst different stakeholders 
will improve the impact of discussions. 

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.

IAS: agreed

IAS:      Addition item c. 
(online sub-portal website for common discussion)

c) one more addition is recommended as prior arrangements to the 
IGF Meetings, that the common issues of the Internet Governance which
have to be added in each next IGF meeting, should have to submitted 
online on a sub-portal website. So, the technical discussions and experts 
opinions would become the online and the final recommendations would be 
addressed at the IGF meeting hours and vetted through consensus. This will 
also improve the discussions by having inputs of different stakeholders, 
experts,
but most of the work will be off the meeting (prior to the meeting).
IAS:      Addition item d. 
(IGF mailing list accessible to MAG for discussion and read only for observers)

d) It is also recommended to introduce IGF mailing list for MAG members
and IGF Staff for discussions and accessible to non-MAG stakeholders, Experts, 
or public as observers.

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.

IAS: agreed

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.

IAS: agreed

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.

IAS: agreed to above points (however, I will appreciate if the subgroups 
into MAG for Regional and National representations could be recommended too 
in list item a.)             and 
IAS:      Addition:           
d). Security and Stability of the Internet System should be addressed on 
priority
 for the reliability, sustainability for development and to avoid trans-border 
cyber-attacks.

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.

IAS: agreed

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.

IAS: agreed

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.

IAS: agreed

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.

IAS: agreed

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.

IAS: agreed

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.

IAS: agreed

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.

IAS: agreed

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.

IAS: agreed

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/dc1aa9a0/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