[governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
Lee W McKnight
lmcknigh at syr.edu
Fri Nov 19 06:49:22 EST 2010
Yes from me too...let's see if we can reach a 'rough consensus' amongst ourselves at least.
________________________________________
From: Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 5:07 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
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><mailto: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><mailto: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<mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com> im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:katitza at eff.org>
katitza at datos-personales.org<mailto: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<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org<http://www.apc.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