RES: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
Vanda UOL
vanda at uol.com.br
Mon Nov 22 15:28:25 EST 2010
Good to have an insider point of view Glaser. Thanks for that.
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Hartmut Glaser [mailto:glaser at nic.br]
Enviada em: sábado, 20 de novembro de 2010 09:45
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Graciela Selaimen
Assunto: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
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
____________________________________________________________
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