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

Graciela graciela at nupef.org.br
Fri Nov 19 07:26:55 EST 2010 

Yes from me.

Em 11/19/10 9:58 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google escreveu:
> +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.
____________________________________________________________
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