[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

Wed Feb 13 04:06:13 EST 2013

inline comments below.

On 12 Feb 2013, at 14:16, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>>> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
>>> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
>>> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
>>> <snip>
>
>>> Paragraph 12
>>> ===========>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>>>
>>> Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
>>> also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
>>> real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
>>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
> Nick, IGF is a serious place for policy deliberations, it does not exist
> to offer 'interesting' things to people. You attend WIPO meeting, how
> many themes there makes 'direct' sense to common people. Has anyone for
> that reason argued to take the serious subjects that WIPO regularly
> deals with off the table? The WSIS mandate on the IGf is clear, and the
> recs of the WG on IGF improvements are even clearer..... the IGF has to
> address focussed policy issues and questions, not indulge in
> generalities. And, excuse me to say so,  a topis like "How can IG
> benefit users wordwide' is as unfocussed a theme as one can be... What
> really does it convey? What do you propose to achieve at the IGF under
> that theme.

What I propose is that instead of discussing IG in a way that is
divorced from what value it might have to real people, the opposite
should be encouraged. I have heard far too many abstract and
theoretical arguments about IG which often become bitter and difficult
exchanges about different value systems. I fail to see how this sort
of debate is of any benefit to the billions who want to get online, or
want maximum benefit from it.

Having themes that explicitly make clear that IG is not an objective
in itself but a means to an end - and then exploring how different
mechanisms actually have real benefits to actual people seems to me
that it would be a real improvement over the current situation.

After all, what purpose does public policy serve if it does not
improve the lives of real people? I think all of us in policy
positions owe an obligation to the billions who cannot speak because
they are not connected, or are too busy struggling for the basics of
life, to keep those people, not ourselves, at the front of our minds.

As to WIPO, that institution manages to avoid dealing with really
important questions the vast majority of the time. I think we should
aim much higher than WIPO vis a vis relevance to people's lives ;)

> I strongly suggest that we put forward focussed clear themes that helps
> IGF address its mandate of a serious policy dialogue, something which it
> has been refraining from doing till now.

Which, for the avoidance of doubt, is not in conflict with my idea.

> Hence, I am unable to agree to the IGC proposing such a general theme as
> 'How can IG benefit users wordwide'.

So, how about an alternative, assuming that you agree the objective
should be IG that delivers real value to people, which I would hope
and trust everyone here shares.

> rgds, parminder
>
>
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
>>> overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
>>> stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
>>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>>>
>>> Paragraphs 13 + 14
>>> =================>> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>>> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>>> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>>> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>>> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>>> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>>> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>>> members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>>> with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>>> Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>>> consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>>> reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>>> across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>>> resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>>> openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>>> treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>>> interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>>> community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>>> so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>>> Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>>>
>>> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
>>> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
>>> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>>> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>>>
>>> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
>>> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>>> voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>>> times."
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
>>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
>>> reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
>>> of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
>>> should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
>>> tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
>>> held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
>>> who have been heard from many times."
>>>
>>> Paragraphs 21 and 22
>>> ===================>> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
>>> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
>>> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
>>> to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
>>> Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
>>> as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
>>> commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
>>> next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
>>> analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
>>> the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>>>
>>> Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
>>> Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
>>> choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
>>> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
>>> comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
>>> to decide on topics and format."
>>>
>>> Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
>>> specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
>>> Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
>>> proceed unfortunately."
>>>
>>> Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
>>> which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
>>> also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
>>>
>>> Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
>>> paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
>>> suggestions to that effect."
>>>
>>> Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
>>> review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
>>> not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"
>>>
>>> Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
>>> of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
>>> very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
>>> Action Plan (2003)"
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
>>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
>>> aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
>>> the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
>>> “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
>>> question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
>>> rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
>>> [The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
>>> Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
>>> [Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
>>> are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
>>> discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
>>> could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
>>> IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
>>> format."
>>>
>>> Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
>>> object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
>>>
>>> Paragraph 36
>>> ===========>> Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
>>> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
>>>
>>> Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
>>>
>>> Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
>>> unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
>>> connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
>>> need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
>>>
>>> Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
>>> and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
>>> logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
>>> stakeholders can comment."
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
>>> paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
>>> connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
>>> public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
>>>
>>> Any missed comments???
>>> =====================>> If I've missed any comments (that were posted by the deadline) please
>>> repost them ASAP, together with a proposed resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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