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

[parminder]

On Friday 19 November 2010 05:32 PM, McTim wrote:
> Hi Parminder. Some of us dont think in terms of nation states as the
> unit of Internet policy making, we think of networks and individuals
> taking this role instead. At least, thats my position. Rgds, mctim
>    

Sure, McTim, for my present argument, i raise issues not with you but 
with those who do in fact consider OECD/ CoE countries pretty good 'unit 
of Internet policy making' and enthusiastically engage with these units, 
but pull away from more globally democratic structural possibilities. 
parminder
> On 11/19/10, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>    
>>
>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>      
>>> 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".
>>>        
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>    Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
>> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
>> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
>> mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
>> form or the other.
>>      
>>>    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.
>>>
>>>        
>> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
>> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
>> do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>>
>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
>> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
>> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
>> ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
>> global civil society group.
>>
>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
>> Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
>> issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
>> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
>> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this
>> issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>
>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
>> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
>> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
>> current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
>> enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
>> process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
>> he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder
>> process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards
>> development of global Internet policies through making policy
>> recommendations.
>>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
>> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
>> of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
>> Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to
>> closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in
>> fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
>> 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they
>> strongly resisted.
>>
>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
>> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which
>> then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group,
>> which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire
>> to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
>> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
>> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
>> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the
>> global level.
>>
>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
>> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
>> vocal in articulating their interests.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>      
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/a65e4e0f/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