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

[Fouad Bajwa]

I see the CoE to be a weaker form. I am yet to see how CoE's efforts
in the context of Internet Governance result in any concrete
result....


Best

-- Fouad

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:12 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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