[governance] Open consultation

Fri Feb 17 05:52:45 EST 2012

Dear Baudoin and all

Multistakeholderism is just an empty shell if large parts of CS cannot be able to attend official "open" events where decisions or even recommendations are made. Most, if not all, of these parts of CS orgs are those from DCs, and the main, if not unique, point there is lack of funding.

During the open (WSIS Forum 2012) preparatory meeting held in Geneva on last November, EUROLINC, through the voice of its president Louis Pouzin, made en official statement on this very point that suggested a financial contribution from ICANN for this specific -Internet related- activity.

Here is the link to this statement :  http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article77

I wonder why nobody on the list mentions this important suggestion (i.a. APC was present at this meeting).

Imho, the proposal of EUROLONK is serious and documented. Therefore I'd encourage CS involved in the IG process -the Caucus on IG in particular- to strongly supports it.

Best

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT France

> Message du 16/02/12 02:09
> De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Deirdre Williams" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Open consultation
> 
> Hello Williams,
> 
> I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in a country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all human relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians, scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With this in mind, respecting building on the principle of multistakeholderism, we thought our exchanges organized locally by relying on academic institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, international agencies, subregional and regional active instiutions in the country with civil society entities that represent the users, ie consumers of ICT.
> Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and international levels.
> 
> This process requires very good planning and that's what we have already begun.
> 
> The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high up.
> The national IGF is an indispensable support and essential for IGF subregional, regional and international levels.
> 
> Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF  are not considered base in all these approaches.
> 
> It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the participation of active and useful really is becoming more problematic in developing countries. We must think about it.
> We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of "sovereignty".
> 
> It should also assess the active participation of official delegations.
> 
> In short we need to talk and not exclude us.
> 
> 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> 
> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491
> email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
> skype                 : b.schombe
> blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2012/2/14 Deirdre Williams 
> I should have sent this to the list yesterday.
Sorry it's so long.
Deirdre

> 
Comments from me and on submissions made by others:
There  appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a shift so that now development is not only an issue between countries – north and south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – a rich developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in the north and in the south. This needs to be recognised.

Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various languages.

ISOC

Remote participation
The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote participants that 
went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge and cost 
of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100%

National Regional IGFs
There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two interfaces to 
continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to do this could be set up – or encouraged and improved?

Funding
This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always equated with money.

we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree

filtering  be part of  the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing. How to reconcile the unreconcilable?

APC
In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance body was put on the
table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) , which resulted in
exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion. 
However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is what triggered my first comment (see above) 
(Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata)

The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an appropriate level of
transparency was also highlighted - yes

if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, then policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for governing such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation of policy as much as possible. 

However, high prices remain a problem.  Electricity is still widely unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy revenue generator.

the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next IGF. Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that address issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the mineral procurement chain.  – this also needs greater public awareness. Can this be taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling?

internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom of expression and association, and responding to violence against women online. - yes

freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES

Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES

Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above

human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea

internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of association. 
Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF included:
• a human rights approach to mobile
• remedies for internet rights violations
• human rights and corporate responsibility
• the rights of disabled people and young people.

(who speaks for whom? Profile of mag;  consider the person or consider the ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency represented)

Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework. Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people who will be using technology
We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil society and the
technical communities.  Rather than talking about each other, we should be speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES

NRO
Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is still much to be 
done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. – see above
• Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct participation between them 
and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of discussions – see above

Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback and information 
Sharing – see above

> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120217/0bba0a4c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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