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

Hartmut Glaser glaser at nic.br
Sat Nov 20 06:45:08 EST 2010


Dear All,

I attend the preparatory eLAC 2015 Meeting last September in Montevideo 
at have a very
positive impression. Next week in Lima will be the 'high level' 
Ministries Summit for the final
approval of the eLAC 2015 Project.  I thing that Graciela used wrong or 
partial information to
say is a meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG. This 
was not the case at the
preparatory meeting in Montevideo and many  IC/IG points were included 
at the agenda.

All the best

Hartmut Glaser
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee

==========================================================
> Hi,
>
> I have the same impression of ECLAC in regards to Latin America - a 
> meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG.
> I totally agree with Fouad's last paragraph. For us, in LAC region, 
> many concerns remain very similar to Athens. Others, such as the 
> increasing of surveillance and attempts to control the Internet and 
> criminalize its users surfaced during this 5 yers period and I think 
> we must address them more concretely - and "evolve into something more 
> meaningful", as Fouad said.
>
> Best regards,
> Graciela Selaimen
>
> Em 11/19/10 2:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa escreveu:
>> SAARC for us in South Asia remains the same meaningless meeting point
>> exploited by elites and so called representatives of South Asian
>> nations to keep everyone busy in discussion leading nothing anywhere.
>> The political, social and economic situations of the 8 member
>> countries tell the wonderful story of the failure of this so called
>> SAUnion.
>>
>> The model may work well for African, Latin/CT and European
>> citizens/members but not for this part of the world. ASEAN tends to be
>> more stronger in Asia Pacific. Really, do we have to be orthodox and
>> step back into the systems and unions of the non-internet oriented era
>> whereas we can progress towards forming an institution more
>> contextual, responsive and engaged in Internet and its context only
>> related issues?
>>
>> Maybe a bridge out of that institution may exist that can link all
>> these institutional models of the past that really haven't helped much
>> and the global financial meltdown, recession and now struggling bonds
>> and interest based hair-cuts are blowing the sanity out of them?
>>
>> It may be wise to step back for once and recap what has happened in
>> the past 5 years with regards to the IGF. Athens was the strong-point,
>> Vilnius, though lots of improvements and opportunities also portrayed
>> how many years back things might fall if not improved for the next
>> five years.
>>
>> The issue remains valid. We need the developing world voices to voice
>> our concerns and for us our concerns remain very similar to Athens, we
>> want something from the IGF........its open, inclusive and
>> participative dialogue on IG and related issues is
>> wonderful........but where do we go from here? Do we stay the same way
>> or do we learn from our regional IGFs that there is an opportunity to
>> evolve into something more meaningful where messages and
>> recommendations with working groups are being felt to be the first
>> step and way forward?
>>
>> --- Best
>>
>> Fouad
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This seems to make a lot of sense to me.
>>>
>>> I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I made that 
>>> developing nations also work through the regional intergovernmental 
>>> organizations that their nations belong to, of which i believe there 
>>> are scores e.g.:
>>>
>>> African Union
>>> ASEAN
>>> D-8
>>> SIDS
>>> USAN
>>> ...
>>>
>>> or  smaller groups like
>>>
>>> CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
>>> Indian Ocean Commission
>>> SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)
>>> SADC (Southern African Development Community)
>>> ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)
>>> ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean)
>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and OECD etc  
>>> and make sure that everyone was invovled and that the development 
>>> perspective was heard and reinforced?  What am I missing?
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>>>
>>>> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain 
>>>> the need for participation of developing countries in discussions 
>>>> to defend their interests.
>>>> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF 
>>>> before world  IGF.
>>>> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both 
>>>> national and regional levels through training workshops and 
>>>> multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
>>>> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same 
>>>> information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national 
>>>> and express their views.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BAUDOUIN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/11/19 parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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



More information about the Governance mailing list