[governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean

[Fouad Bajwa]

I would also like to add my yes and at the same time mention that we
have to a witness a great deal in the coming week here in Geneva at
the consultations, mag and cstd meetings......

best

Fouad Bajwa

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 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
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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