[governance] to whom Thanksgiving is an important celebration

Wed Nov 24 12:12:02 EST 2010

-Joy and fun, wish fulfillment and blessing, come to your home and the ones
you love this Thanksgiving! 

Descrição: Descrição: cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8BE8.2769CDB0

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: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2010 13:42
Para: Governance List
Assunto: [governance] Fwd: Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements
to the IGF

Just sent to the CSTD Secretariat and received the confirmation of their
receipt.

Jeremy, please put it to our website when you have time to work.

Thanks all,

izumi

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

Date: 2010/11/20

Subject: Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

To: cstdwg-igf at unctad.org

Cc: Mongi Hamdi <Mongi.Hamdi at unctad.org>, Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch,
frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch, Franziska Klopfer
<Franziska.Klopfer at unctad.org>, Anne Miroux <Anne.Miroux at unctad.org>, Dong
Wu <Dong.Wu at unctad.org>, Malou Pasinos <Malou.Pasinos at unctad.org>, Jeremy
Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>

Nov 19 2010

Dear CSTD,

Here attached and following is the Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on
improvements to the IGF.

On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, we submit them
for the input to the coming consultation process.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to participate in the process and we
look forward to working with you in the coming consultation meeting on Nov
24 in Geneva and beyond.

Sincerely,

Izumi Aizu

Jeremy Malcolm

Co-coordinators,

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)

-----------------

Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Nov 19 2010

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 or messages 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, dDotAsia
Oorganizsation, Interne Society [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 (including the format
of the meeting, the preparatory process, the development of the agenda,
etc.) 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?

Since we are still in the early stage of the consultation process, our
comments include some tentative ideas. We will closely follow the WG process
and will provide more comments and suggestions accordingly.

-----------------

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

      <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, send any message to:

      <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:

      <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/b4dc1035/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3684 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/b4dc1035/attachment.jpg>
-------------- 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