[governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean

[Imran Ahmed Shah]

That mean you really feel the need of consensus (either to reach on the final statement of CS-IGC for CSTD IGF,
or to develop a common statement with higher weight.) 

IGF meetings foster the agenda for a common dialogue, but what are the final results? Do they have impact on all the communities to follow?
It brings many voices to be heard s at a single platform, but what we are missing, that is result oriented agenda, statement or decision. 
And outcomes should not be intangible. Focused, targeted, productive and broader impact, globally.

Regards

Imran

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:49 PKT Lee W McKnight wrote:

>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
____________________________________________________________
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