AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean

Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google tracyhackshaw at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 06:58:05 EST 2010 

+1 for Yes

On 11/19/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree. Tx.
> Ginger
>
> On 11/19/2010 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>
> --
>
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> The latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
> blogs and post your comments.

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
____________________________________________________________
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