[governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean

Fri Nov 19 05:07:39 EST 2010

Also yes from me.

Anriette

On 19/11/10 11:27, parminder wrote:
> I say 'yes'
>
> We can also specifically mention that we will closely follow the CSTD 
> WG process and will keep coming up with other comments and 
> suggestions. thanks. parminder
>
> On Friday 19 November 2010 07:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> Dear list,
>>
>> Many thanks for the comments made despite the last-minute rush.
>>
>> I would like to urge all who have not replied to the call yet, to indicate
>> if you support the FINAL DRAFT, yes or no, and in case, add
>> your comments.
>>
>> As the deadline is approaching I will consult with Jeremy and
>> make the final judgment based on the inputs from all.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/19 Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>:
>>    
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.
>>>
>>> I have a few additional points to make:
>>>
>>> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous
>>> one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation.
>>> Something that some of us, from civil society would not agree  when it deals
>>> with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome
>>> incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation
>>> of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels
>>> ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There
>>> are many outcomes were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of
>>> us will not compromise.
>>>
>>> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
>>> Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank
>>> discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might agree
>>> but also where the boundaries are.
>>>
>>> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of
>>> Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to
>>> identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as
>>> many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in
>>> different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see:
>>> https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>>>
>>> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I would suggest that:
>>>
>>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
>>> think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
>>> identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of
>>> the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points
>>> of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole
>>> message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>>>
>>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
>>> mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the
>>> message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
>>> refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages,
>>> refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such
>>> ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
>>> message from the IGF.
>>>
>>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to
>>> get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>>>
>>>
>>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
>>> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
>>> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening
>>> the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of
>>> developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a
>>> small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
>>> voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
>>> countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
>>> Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
>>> sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Miguel
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>        
>>>
>>> --
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> International Rights Director
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> katitza at eff.org
>>> katitza at datos-personales.org  (personal email)
>>>
>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
>>> speech since 1990
>>>      
>>
>>    

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/15cebb88/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