AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
Graciela Selaimen
graciela at nupef.org.br
Sat Nov 20 17:07:51 EST 2010
Dear Miguel, Glaser and all
I was definitely too impulsive in my response to the list. The word
"meaningless" cannot be used in a general manner to qualify Cepal's
work, for sure. However, from a civil society activist's point of view,
the possibilities of participation and interference in the eLAC process
are, IMHO, quite restricted and much of our efforts to make a difference
in that space are very often frustrating and, why not to say, seem
meaningless.
I am very aware of the events and processes led by Cepal - with one
important correction, Miguel: the 3 IGF meetings that occurred in the
LAC region had no participation of CEPAL at all. In this year's meeting,
CEPAL sent one delegate to be a moderator in one of the panels. These
yearly regional meetings have been made possible by the initiative of
civil society organizations, such as APC and Nupef, together with LACNIC
and with the important financial support of APC, LACNIC and CGI.br.
Let's not forget it - it was an open space for whoever wanted to
participate - what doesn't happen at the eLAC process at all.
Actually, there are a lot of difficulties in promoting a more active
participation of civil society in the eLAC process. APC has been doing a
remarkable work in the region being the focal point for civil society in
eLAC. APC has sent, a month ago, a letter to the coordination of eLAC
and to the coordination of the working groups at the eLAC process
stressing the need for reflection on the possibilities of building a
more inclusive process, in terms of incorporating civil society in the
eLAC dinamics in a more systematic way and making efforts to promote
more wider spaces for information in the national level - and also
providing more time for the inputs of regional players in the
consultation processes.
Moreover, it's important to highlight that, in the process of expressing
their interests in presiding the working comissions for the eLAC 2015,
there hasn't been any country postulating for the working comission on
Internet Governance. This, in my opinion, shows that there is little
interest among the countries in the region to lead the work on IG within
eLAC and CEPAL. I wonder why.
I'd like to affirm that, although it's not meaningless in terms of
promoting events and leading the eLAC process, in my opinion CEPAL's
work is not open, not democratic (in a wider sense of the term) and not
participatory - what makes many civil society advocates (myself
included) feel that our efforts and energy put in this space
meaningless. It's a personal opinion, I stress.
To finalize, I'd like to offer one more comment on Miguel's assertion:
>there is a trend tightening freedom of the press and freedom of
information in the region, including the internet and particularly
social >media. Such trend is independent of IG and it needs to be acted
against in other fora, which is being already the case in the
>Interamerican Comission of Human Rights and others.
I strongly disagree with you in this point - this trend is not
independent of IG. I believe there's no way to separate freedom of the
press and freedom of information from IG processes and discussions.
Also, I think that the reactions to my first message are very important
at this precise moment. There's a discussion going on in the lac-cmsi
list about the preparations and articulations for the 'high level'
Ministries Summit for the final approval of the eLAC 2015 Project, that
will happen next week. Perhaps we should continue to explore the
differences and affinities of our views in that space and involve more
LAC players in this discussion.
un saludo,
Graciela
Em 11/20/10 9:26 AM, Miguel Alcaine escreveu:
> Dear Graciela and colleagues:
>
> I tend to disagree with you in your appreciation of ECLAC regarding
> IG, although I would like issues moving much more rapidly and I remain
> open to hear other opinions as well about ECLAC.
>
> Back in 2003, was the regional document agreed in the Dominican
> Republic, which pointed out to the need to discuss Internet
> Governance. This was the only LAC regional meeting with the
> participation of the USA and Canada. For those who that may find that
> strange, it is in order to clarify that both countries are full
> members of ECLAC as some others from the European Union.
>
> That full membership of extra regional countries in the "regional
> commission" makes things a little bit more difficult. No
> extra-regional countries have participated in the following meetings
> in 2005, 2007 and 2010.
>
> The regional process, eLAC can be traced back to 2005, when we met in
> Brazil. There we agreed in a follow-up mechanism. In 2007, if I am not
> wrong, people from all stakeholders agreed to work together in a
> common position of the region regarding IG. During that year, it
> worked with the approval of the mechanism and got the political
> endorsement of the region in the II Ministerial Meeting in February 2008.
>
> There has been also a Working group very much active in
> Infrastructure. The amount of IXP has increased in the region. There
> are 6 new copies of the root server F in the region and infrastructure
> like . While this is not directly related to IG, its indirect effect
> cannot be denied.
>
> The region has had already 3 regional IGF meetings. I think networks
> among people coming from different stakeholders have been formed and
> strengthened.
>
> Unfortunately on other developments, there is a trend tightening
> freedom of the press and freedom of information in the region,
> including the internet and particularly social media. Such trend is
> independent of IG and it needs to be acted against in other fora,
> which is being already the case in the Interamerican Comission of
> Human Rights and others. These more formal intergovernmental fora move
> more slowly and are as effective as the willingness of States to abide.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Graciela Selaimen
> <graciela at nupef.org.br <mailto:graciela at nupef.org.br>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/a1b6ab16/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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