1 - 31 March, 2009

 

The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF Advisory Group mailing list. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule and separate issues related to logistics and internal procedures. The discussion took place between 1 - 31  March, 2009.

 

 

(Writer A)

 

Hi Writer B

 

>Let’s not create terms and issues that do not arise from the Tunis document especially since that would go beyond the mandate of the MAG

 

Do we mean to follow an approach whereby only those issues which have express and literal mention in the WSIS documents can be made into IGF themes and discussed? (Among much other similar text, Tunis agenda mentions 'principle of universality'  in connection to 'internationalization of the Internet' which  directly  brings in the issue  of  'internationalization  of IG/ CIR management'.)

 

>particularly since we all know that there is no consensus on this and is a contentious issue.

 

I think the IGF and the MAG has agreed often that we can/should be discussing contentious issues.

 

In any case, as I have mentioned above and in my earlier email 'internationalization of IG/ CIR management' in so many forms is written all over WSIS documents, was a strong issue of discussion during the WSIS, and it is known widely that though it could not be settled, it remains an important mandate of IG related follow up processes, including the IGF. 

 

>Also Internationalisation sounds like a goal. ..

 

The WGIG report, on which one may say there was even greater multi-stakeholder consensus than WSIS documents since the latter were only signed by governments, is quite clear on what it sees as a value and an objective, to quote " No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance.". What was multi-stakeholder consensus in 2005 cannot be relegated to not even being a good topic for discussion in 2009.

 

 

(Writer C)

 

It would be interesting to apply the logic of literally mapping topics/subjects/themes for the next IGF to the relevant WSIS texts on IGF.
Those who want to avoid discussions on some key topics might just be building an argument for such discussions to take place.  

 

While IGF has discussed a very broad range of topics during the past three meetings, can those who want to avoid discussions on some aspects of CIR clearly explain why there is such an inconsistency in the approach to deal with this particular theme which is central to IGF?

 

If we are to be consistent and to apply strictly WSIS texts in the preparation of the next IGF, then let’s do so for all the IGF themes.  

 

IGF has gained the reputation to be open and a forum where freedom of expression prevails, so let’s not go around in circles and contradict ourselves.

 

 

(Writer B)

 

Dear Writer A,

 

Please point me to some document that talks of ‘Internationalisation of CIR’.

 

we should stick to that language within the WSIS outcome document. If not then can we also have a session on ‘Elimination of Web Filtering’ or ‘Bad Practices in Content Management’ or ‘Land Grab of Internet Regulation’.

 

My point is that session titles should not be subjective but neutral/objective allowing all parties to discuss their subjective views on the topic.

 

Moreover, the MAG has a responsibility to allow its Advised Formats to allow for all views to be discussed in a session and not lobby, push or be partial to one particular outcome.  This is important to maintain the MAG’s credibility.

 

No one is saying we should not allow for a neutrally labelled forum on the issue of CIR Management.  Under that anyone can discuss anything under that topic and use any terminology – we obviously don’t want to nor should ‘Filter’ or ‘Manage Content’ at the sessions – I believe this is a best practice.

 

 

(Writer B)

 

We cant nor want to avoid topics nor is the suggestion ‘avoid discussions on some aspects of CIR’

 

The suggestion that we should allow for a neutral labelling of CIR so that it does not seem like we are pushing an agenda or one view.  Under that neutral topic anyone is free to discuss anything related to that topic.

 

 

---

 

 

(Writer D)

 

Dear all,



Many of us are currently in the ICANN meeting and it will be difficult to conduct this week a full discussion on this.



I would however like to provide some quick comments in the discussion : 


- we have agreed in Geneva that the session would actually address the contentious issues; so the current discussion is not about constraining the debate, but about the title;


- the choice of a title is important for a session and it should indicate a level of agreement within the MAG on the nature of an issue or the existence of a common goal


- we had last year interesting discussions on titles and it sometimes allowed a progress in the discussion, like with the title "Fostering Security, Privacy and Openness"; hopefully we should strive to do the same on this : formulating either a common concern or a common goal.



On the current subject, two complementary points :


- France in general supports the use of the term "internationalization of ICANN" to frame the discussion about the evolution of its institutional framework, knowing that a lot of explanation is needed to explain/explore what we mean with "internationalization"


- but we also understand that this is not considered as a common goal yet by all actors and, as mentioned by Writer B, this is not an expression included in the WSIS documents (contrary to the expression "enhanced cooperation")



Therefore, it cannot be argued that this is agreed text." International Management of the Internet" is a formula in the WSIS documents and we have agreed on "Managing Critical Internet REsources as a Theme last year; likewise, as I mentioned in Geneva, "evolution of the current arrangements" is in para 61 of the TAIS. 



Therefore, my suggestion would be for this session to present it as :


Managing Critical Internet Resources

    Evolution of Current Arrangements

 

This would actually allow to cover both the JPA debate, the current arrangements for allocation of IP addresses and any other arrangement discussed in the corresponding session in Hyderabad (on national, regional and international arrangements).

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

(Writer E)

 

 

Writer B & all,

 

Writer B wrote:

> Dear Writer A

>

> Please point me to some document that talks of ‘Internationalisation of

> CIR’.

>

> we should stick to that language within the WSIS outcome document. If not

> then can we also have a session on ‘Elimination of Web Filtering’ or ‘Bad

> Practices in Content Management’ or ‘Land Grab of Internet Regulation’.

>

 

Yes, there is at least one. Para 29 of the Tunis Agenda assumes the

Internet managed on an international basis -- so obviously

internationalization of CIR is a theme which, if you will, received the

"nihil obstat" from the TA. Of course we are not in a snapshot world in

which everything must be religiously and word-by-word referred to the

official WSIS docs, given the dynamics of the Internet. Quoting:

 

"We reaffirm the principles enunciated in the Geneva phase of the WSIS,

in December 2003, that the Internet has evolved into a global facility

available to the public and its governance should constitute a core

issue of the Information Society agenda. The international management of

the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with

the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society

and international organisations. It should ensure an equitable

distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable

and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account

multilingualism."

 

As to the suggestions you have, why not? Let us discuss. :)

 

 

 

 

(Writer F)

 

Dear MAG Members,

 

I believe Writer D has captured a very important distinction -- the topic and the content of the panel.   I believe we are and should be striving for a non-conclusory title for a panel in this area.  There is neither consensus among MAG members, let alone the broader interested stakeholder community, so as to support a conclusory panel title, such as internationalization of CIR, nor is there WSIS text support. 

 

Therefore, a non-conclusory title that allows for different views seems appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of our exercise.   I would therefore suggest that Writer D’s proposal allows us a way forward at this point in time.

 

Kind Regards (from a MAG member not at ICANN),

 

 

 

(Writer G)

 

Colleagues and friends,

 

I am reverting to the original message with my response for a reason I hope will become clear.  I have also made comments on the excellent text of the draft summary, attached to this message in track changes format.  But a few high-level points to capture my thoughts on the creative outpouring we've seen this weekend.

 

1/  The specific task before us now is to comment on the summary report.  This is to support the work of the Secretariat who are attempting to produce a short, factual summary of the work we did last week to inform our audience who await a report.  I think it is vital that the nature of the task be kept in mind.  I read with interest the comments over the last few days.  I believe most of them shared the different goal of continuing the debate, and I hope to offer my own in time.  However, as Writer D said, many of us are fully occupied with the ICANN meeting in Mexico City this week.  I for one will not be able to contribute to the ongoing debate until that is over.  The point here is that I want to offer my full support to the Secretariat as they weed out the comments on the draft summary report from the debate, and post a public summary in a timely fashion.  Their task is not made easier by mixing comments and debate.

 

2/  It is my view that there is some revisionist history in the comments posted in this chain of messages.  One specific example (and there are certainly more):  it has been stated that the " MAg meeting hadn't touched upon "the IPv6 and the role of governments"."  That is incorrect.  I raised that point and according to my detailed notes there was at least one response in support.  I hope that we won't have to resort to taping our meetings and reverting to transcript to keep the record straight.

 

3/  I think it would be unfortunate if we have to spend more time this year debating the *intent* of the WSIS text.  It seems to me we need to take it at face value, as agreed text.  If we're going to quote then, as per past practice, let us quote the whole of the relevant passage and not cherry pick words and phrases.  We cannot put new words in the mouths of those who agreed to publish the WSIS documents.  The "whole text" approach has been disputed but ultimately agreed each of the past three years, and its simplicity has allowed us to work together to construct IGF sessions that have dealt with difficult topics.  It will do the same this year if we give it a chance.

 

4/  Let us further recall that the IGF arose from the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, which "noted" the report of the WGIG.  It did not adopt or incorporate the WGIG report in whole or in part.  There is no doubt that the WGIG documents (for there were 2 parts) are valuable reference material, but there is also no doubt that the WGIG report does not share the same status as the WSIS documents.  It will help us avoid further debates about interpretations or intents if we accept that.

 

Sorry for the rather short notes here, but I want to table this before the deadline of noon, Geneva time, Monday.  I hope to be able to send comments on the other debates soon.

 

Best regards,

 

 

(Writer H)

 

Dear Markus,

 

Thanks very much to the Secretariat for drafting the report.  I have one comment to add.  As I recall, reference was made to sustainable development and climate change as a possible discussion topic.  As this emerging area of work was one of the outcomes from the Hyderabad meeting, perhaps we could keep this topic for further consideration.

 

 

 

(Writer I)

 

Dear Colleagues:

 

I support Writer F for this important issue of non-conclusory titles, not only for this session but for all sessions. As we all know IGF is a platform to discuss, exchange ideas, experiences… if we put any title that may take the discussion to a specific area we would not have helped that subject.

 

 

 

(Writer J)

 

Dear Markus

 

Thank for this summary report.

 

Para 10 - I would like to suggest that this part "Access was seen as a

poverty issue" is removed because it seems ambiguous in connotation; not

only some might consider it only as least developed countries' problem,

but also as we know, access is an issue for people with disabilities who

are not all "poor".

 

I think we can keep only the rest of the sentence ("the importance of

developing infrastructure was seen as part of kick-starting the

economy") and the idea that we want to underline is more or less still

present.

 

Regarding the current discussion on "internationalization" and "CIR" -

If we don't want to keep what's in the summary, I think Writer D

proposal is a good alternative based on past adopted phrases - and for

consensus sake, let's move ahead (publicizing the report), as what is in

the report already captures broadly the issue raised now. And as said in

para 7 of the summary report "The titles in the schedule are working

titles". We may after sending out the document continue the discussion.

 

 

(Writer K)

 

Hi everyone,

 

I support the report in the current form, and I congratulate the

secretariat for its neutral representation of a very political debate. I

  would also support Writer H's suggestion to add climate change and

sustainable development as potential topics.

 

I think Writer G is right about the various perspectives and topics

regarding IPv6 that were brought up in the discussion.

While it is obvious that the Tunis Agenda constitutes the frame of

reference for the annual IGF agenda, I hope that wouldn't ban relevant

topics relating to Internet governance on the grounds that it wasn't

explicitly mentioned in official WSIS documents. Internet governance is

a very dynamic area and the IGF program should reflect new topics as

well as the "classic",contentious ones. I agree with Writer D and

Writer F that neutral wording is important in order to facilitate a

constructive debate on these issues.

 

 

 

(Writer L)

 

Dear all,

 

I would also like to thank Secretariat for its prompt preparation of the summary of our meeting and its willingness to deliver this report to the public asap.

 

While I observe our two day debate in this list on what should be on the summary and what should not be, I feel very confused once again why we have to debate what can be in the summary report and what cannot be.

 

Putting aside our Geneva debate on IG issues related with CIR, I understand one of our MAG members asked for more background description to enhance the public's understanding on why such proposal is now on the table in the summary report. It is common practice the Secretariat respects such request from the party.  

On the other hand, I do not recall whether we as MAG discussed such theme during our meeting even though I do recall there was intervention on Climate Change and Sustainable Development during the open consultation made by IISD.

 

So, this makes me once again very perplexed. Some of our MAG members here suggest we should add something we did not even discuss at the MAG meeting while we cannot even write what was discussed very contentiously at our MAG meeting.

 

At the end, I undrstand it is secretariat's call to make decisions on what should be in the summary report, however, I would like to see more consistent manner of reflecting our debates in the MAG meeting down this road. Hope such consistent approach from Secretariat can enhance the public's understanding on what kind of discussion we have in the MAG. 

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

(Writer M)

 

Dear All,

 

I join the pervious interventions thanking the Secretariat for the timely preparation of the summary of the MAG meeting. Unfortunately I couldn’t participate at the MAG meeting therefore my comments are limited to the open consultations.

 

[EDITED] stresses it’s willingness to bring forward the discussion on multilingualism and considers that the theme can be under the Type C (convergence of views on the principles) for the next IGF. Although substantial actions are being taken in various fora there is a need of informing (and building capacities) and involving more actors particularly from developing countries. At the next IGF issues like coordination among different actors for the implementation of the technical requirements, and political arrangements could be discussed.

 

The discussions around the theme Internet rights that emerged during the open consultation can be considered as cross-cutting of many of the main themes of the previous IGFs. Access, openness, multilingualism, privacy, CIR, they all have components of rights. The following consultations for the preparation of the fourth IGF should give the opportunity to the stakeholders to further discuss the better approach to mainstream rights into the IGF debate.

 

 

(Writer N)

 

Dear colleagues,

I too appreciate the efforts of the secretariat to provide a prompt summary report of the MAG meetings. I would like to support input from Writers G, D, F and other colleagues, and apologize for the late and short input given that I too am at the ICANN meetings and fully occupied.

 

 

 

(Writer O)

 

 

> [EDITED] stresses it's willingness to bring forward the discussion on

> multilingualism and considers that the theme can be under the Type C

> (convergence of views on the principles) for the next IGF. Although

> substantial actions are being taken in various fora there is a need of

> informing (and building capacities) and involving more actors

> particularly from developing countries. At the next IGF issues like

> coordination among different actors for the implementation of the

> technical requirements, and political arrangements could be discussed.

 

I support what Writer M wrote here, to discuss multilingualism "one step 

further". What is needed though is to (as with other areas) ask people 

for feedback what to discuss. If we do not get directions, then I am 

afraid we will not be able to drill down to the real issues. Last 

year, I found the instructions to us that coordinated was too broad, 

and too many things where discussed. I rather have a discussion on 

fewer things, but what things I would like people to tell "us" (for 

some definition of "us").

 

 

 

(Writer P)

 

Dear All,

 

I also join others in thanking the secretariat for the timely effort in preparing this summary report.  I too think the document has very well captured our discussions during the meeting. I just have few comments to make:

 

*          If I recall right we did discuss that the overall theme of "Internet: An opportunity for All" is a cross cutting theme that builds upon last year's theme, and that it addresses challenges and includes the issue of rights.

*          I also support Writers M and O that the theme of "Multilingualism" is very important and needs to be tackled again in the context of "identifying our needs" and "taking multilingualism on step further".

 

Best regards

 

 

 

(Markus Kummer)

 

Dear colleagues,

 

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments and the kind words addressed to the Secretariat. We have incorporated your suggestions to the extent possible and posted a revised version of the summary. As some among you pointed out: the aim of the paper is to provide a summary record of our discussions last week. Such a summary record can never do justice to the full breadth of more than 10 hours of discussions and it would be impossible to go into all the details of the pros and cons related to every single issue. The safest way to record this is therefore to go to the highest level of abstraction. Also, the list of issues mentioned is purely illustrative – we made this clearer in the revised version.

 

There seems to be some difference in understanding of how we concluded the discussions on some of these issues. To my recollection, we left many issues open and accepted that there were different opinions with regard to some of them. This also applies to the question whether we should stick to agreed WSIS language or that we should go beyond it. In particular, this point was made with regard to critical Internet resources as well as the proposed new theme of ‘Internet rights and principles’. The revised version tries to make this more explicit.

 

All in all, I am very pleased with last week’s meetings. We now have a solid basic structure for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. In May we will have to agree on the wording of each of the sessions, so that we can recommend an agenda for the IGF meeting. We have already started the discussions on how to find common language and I would like to encourage you all to continue the online discussions.

 

 

 

 

 

(Markus Kummer)

 

Dear colleagues,

 

As discussed last week, we intend launching the online process of the formal consultations called for by Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda with a list of questions. Attached is the list I read out during the consultations. Should you have any comments, please let us know by the end of this week.

 

 

ATTACHMENT

 

Formal consultation with Forum participants

 In accordance with Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda

 

Questions:

The consultations could address the following broad questions:

 

 

Comment Box 1:    To what extent has the IGF adhered to the substantive mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda

Comment Box 2:    To what extent has the IGF complied with WSIS principles?

Comment Box 3:    What has the impact of the IGF been in direct terms?

Comment Box 4:    What has the impact of the IGF been in indirect terms?

Comment Box 5:    What has the impact been, most particularly, on developing countries?

Comment Box 6:    What were various stakeholders’ expectations for establishing the IGF based on the WSIS outcomes?

Comment Box 7:    To what extent have these expectations been met?

Comment Box 8:    How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?

Comment Box 9:    How could these be improved?

Comment Box 10:                        What is the most appropriate funding model for the IGF to fulfil the expectations of its stakeholders?

Comment Box 11:                        Has the environment within which the IGF is set changed since the initiation of the IGF?

Comment Box 12:                        To what extent, if any, is this due to the IGF existence? 

Comment Box 13:                        How does this change affect the IGF and its possible continuation?

Comment Box 14:                        Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its original five-year mandate, in the view of its stakeholders, and why/why not?

Comment Box 15:                        If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, should it be continued in its present form?

Comment Box 16:                        If changes are needed, what changes should be made?

 

 

 

 

(Writer E)

 

 

Markus, I read the revised version and it looks quite OK. I would

have a suggestion to make Writer D's types A, B and C clearer to the IGF

public, by calling them, respectively, Open Discussions, Panels, and

Round Tables. So, para 4 would read:

 

4. The draft schedule is based on the recognition that different themes

need to be dealt with differently. The MAG identified three different

types of formats:

 

Open Discussions: Issues where there is no convergence of views. In

these cases there is no need for any panel or introductory speeches. An

open discussion is best suited for these issues.

 

Panels: Issues that are generally understood, but which need further

exploration. For these issues, an introductory panel of experts followed

by a discussion was seen as the most appropriate format.

 

Round Tables: Issues where there is a convergence of views on the

principles and the need for action. These issues could be dealt with by

round table discussions which could look at solutions and best practices.

 

 

 

 

(Writer Q)

 

Dear Markus,

 

First of all, thanks for the excellent summary report - congratulations

to the secretariat!

 

In regards to the questions, I don't think it's feasible to measure the

"impact" of the IGF in this consultation. An impact assessment would

need a structured methodology, among other requisites. My suggestion is

that the consultations explore the outcomes or influences of the IGF in

the participants' work, practices and realities, rather than the impact

of the IGF. 

 

 

 

 

(Writer R)

 

Dear Markus,

 

Let me also thank and congratulate you and the Secretariat team for the summary report.

 

I would like to support the suggestions made by Writer E. 

 

Best,

 

 

 

 

(Writer E)

 

I second this excelent suggestion from Writer Q.

 

 

(Markus Kummer)

 

Dear Writer E,

 

Many thanks for your suggestions. However, this is a summary record and not a rolling document. We asked for comments within a given deadline (Monday noon Geneva time) and have posted it since, incorporating the comments received within that deadline. I am reluctant to change a document that has been posted, unless there is a glaring mistake that needs to be corrected. In this case, the perfect would be the enemy of the good.

 

While I see your point, I don't think that this would be a fair summary of our discussion. There were objections against the concept of round tables and our wording in the summary report takes this into account. Admittedly, it may not be as clear as your proposal, but it reflects last week's discussions. The concept of round tables clearly needs to be further discussed and refined.

 

In my reading of our discussions, some issues related to access and diversity could best be prepared by round tables. The outcomes of these discussions could then be presented to the respective main sessions (in our schedule to be held in the morning and afternoon of the third day). However, the respective main sessions would not be held in the form of round table sessions.

 

Best regards

Markus

 

 

(Markus Kummer)

 

Dear Writer Q,

 

Many thanks for your kind words.

 

There may be a misunderstanding as regards the purpose of the questionnaire. It is intended to kick-start the call for contributions as an input into the formal consultations and also as a guide for structuring that session. However, it is not supposed to be a rigid straight-jacket. Anybody is free to send in whatever they deem best suited for this purpose.

 

The notion of the 'impact of the IGF', whether direct or indirect, has come up repeatedly in previous consultations. We use the term in a more subjective manner, very much along the lines you are using yourself as an alternative description, and not in the sense of an 'impact assessment' in the technical sense.

 

For the purposes of such a questionnaire the term 'impact' seems short and to the point. I recall that when I attended the launch of the UK IGF, Emily, in her introductory remarks, said "this or that would not have happened, had it not been for the IGF" to describe the same notion of impact.

 

There may be no harm to describe more in detail what is meant, if it helps avoid misunderstandings.

 

 

 

(Writer E)

 

Understood, Markus. In any case, we will certainly arrive at a more

proper terminology as this process advances.

 

 

(Writer Q)

 

Hi, Markus

 

> The notion of the 'impact of the IGF', whether direct or indirect, has come up

> repeatedly in previous consultations. We use the term in a more subjective

> manner, very much along the lines you are using yourself as an alternative

> description, and not in the sense of an 'impact assessment' in the technical sense.

> 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

 

(Writer S)

 

 

Writer C:

 

Sorry for the delay in answering your email. I had been traveling almost all the time

Comments below.

 

 

> It would be interesting to apply the logic of literally mapping topics/subjects/themes for the next IGF to the relevant WSIS texts on IGF.

Those who want to avoid discussions on some key topics might just be building an argument for such discussions to take place.  

 

 

The more clear case was the discussion about Privacy and freedom of expression. While there was a broad support to priorize the discussion about Privacy implications of very activities on the Internet, there was a minority opposition in the MAG to include it in the Title of the session.

 

Internet rights, what clearly refers to "Human Rights in the Internet environment" (my definition of course), was another example. 

 

 

>While IGF has discussed a very broad range of topics during the past three meetings, can those who want to avoid discussions on some aspects of CIR clearly explain why there is such an inconsistency in the approach to deal with this particular theme which is central to IGF?

 

 

I guess that there is a misudersntandng here. As many others has pointed out, there is not oppositon to discuss any topic related to what is named as "CIR". The problem is how to present the discussion. Is very simple. I don't remember if you were in the meeting on Thursday but it was clarified many times in the discussion that day.  

I don't understand how somebody can infere from that that there is an intention of avoiding the discussion about any topic. I am really surprised. 

There have been open, productive and long discussions about "CIRs" in the last meetings. The organizations currently involved in the operation of different aspects of the Internet has probed their willingness to discuss openly and frankly all the matters related with their activities.

On the other hand we continue having difficulties to discuss deeply other issues that are very important for the Internet users around the world. 

 

 

 

 

(Writer J)

 

Dear Markus, Chengetai

 

For your information, a concern raised on the CS governance list about

setting up pdf files for blind people - (raised following the

publication of the summary report in pdf)..

 

-------- Message original --------

[EDITED]

 

 

 

Hi

 

Actually, PDF files can be very accessible for blind people and others 

using screen readers, but the document needs to be set up correctly. 

Specifically, this means using the authoring software (eg Adode 

Professional) to tag the document so that screen readers can follow 

the correct structure.

 

In the present case, the MAG summary does not appear to be tagged - 

the main text will probably be fine, but it's likely screen readers 

will have a problem with the tables.

 

Regards

- Gerard

 

--

Gerard Ross

 

[EDITED] wrote:

 

> Dear All,

> 

> There is a parallel discussion about internet accessibility for 

> persons with disabilities taking place on the IDA CRPD Forum 

> listserv and it is my understanding (from some of the 

> representatives of the World Blind Union) that Adobe pdf files are 

> not accessible for blind persons.  The fact that the official 

> summary report is in pdf format is of concern.  I am requesting that 

> some of you who are "in the loop" will raise this concern in all 

> places where this problem might be addressed and resolved to the 

> satisfaction of our blind colleagues.

> 

> Thank you for your attention to this matter,

> 

> Myra Kovary

> A member of the IDA CRPD Forum

 

 

 

(Chengetai Masango)

 

Thanks Writer J for bringing this to our attention.

We will remedy the matter as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Chengetai

 

 

 

(Writer G)

 

I have attached a version of the questionnaire using "comments" mode.  If anyone has trouble reading them, please let me know and I will cut and past them in-line.

 

In summary, I am recommending that the questions be formated in two sections: one setting out the questions that the Tunis Agenda (TAIS) seems to me to directly require that we answer (#14-16); the second being questions that can add perspective and depth to our understanding of the essential questions.  There are two questions (#6 and 7) that I believe are impossible to answer accurately (referring to what might have been intentions in 2005) that I recommend cutting.

 

I hope these comments are helpful.  Let me know if I can assist in any way.

 

Best

 

ATTACHMENT

 

Formal consultation with Forum participants

 In accordance with Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda

 

Questions:

 

The consultations could address the following broad questions:

 

 

1.         To what extent has the IGF addressed the substantive mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda

2.         To what extent has the IGF respected the WSIS principles?

3.         What has the impact of the IGF been in direct terms?

4.         What has the impact of the IGF been in indirect terms?

5.         What has the impact been, most particularly, on developing countries and capacity building?

6.         What were various stakeholders’ expectations for establishing the IGF based on the WSIS outcomes?

7.         To what extent have these expectations been met?

8.         How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?

9.         How could these be improved?

10.       What is the most appropriate funding model for the IGF to fulfil the expectations of its stakeholders?

11.       Has the environment within which the IGF is set changed since the initiation of the IGF?

12.       To what extent, if any, is this due to the IGF existence? 

13.       How does this change affect the IGF and its possible continuation?

14.       Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its original five-year mandate, in the view of its stakeholders, and why/why not?

15.       If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, should it be continued in its present form?

16.       If changes are needed, what changes should be made?

 

 

 

(Writer A)

 

All,

 

I agree with Writer G that questions 14-16 can be listed at a level different than the rest of them.

 

However, I would suggest that questions 6 and 7 be retained since all questions other than 14-16 are more general and supposed to add, in Writer G's words, 'perspective and depth to our understanding'. In this respect, connecting to a broader background that brought forth the IGF may be helpful.

 

I also suggest that the question 5 -

What has the impact been, most particularly, on developing countries?

be phrased as

What has the impact been, most particularly, vis a vis developing countries ?

Since the term 'impact on' assumes that impact has to solely be on nations (meaning national policies and practices) while I understand that the 'development' or 'developing country' focus of the IGF is supposed to be not only regarding their national policies and practices but also - at least as importantly -  vis a vis their interests at the global level.

Writer G suggests that either the phrase 'and capacity building' be added to question 5, or a  separate question be framed on this issue. In keeping with the above argument, it may not be appropriate to add this phrase to this question. If a separate question is to be framed on the 'capacity building' function of the IGF - overall, or with specific regard to developing countries - we will need to frame one on its 'policy related function' as well. The TA is clear in prioritizing the policy-related function of the IGF to its capacity building function. In fact the Internet Governance Caucus's contribution to the recent open consultations does refer to the advantage of seeing these two function with some amount of clarity of distinction.

 

 

 

(Writer T)

 

Hi All,

 

After reading carefully Writers G and A valuable comments I would like to add:

 

16 questions survey/questionaire is already quite long. So it is necessary to keep it no more longer than that if we expect to have good answers for the last questions. I would try to replace some questions instead of adding more.

 

I agree with Writer G that question 6-7 are difficult to answer. Especially considering that expectations are quite subjective and some times, expectations have not been coherent with the mandate of IGF. I mean, some people asking to take concrete actions on some issues show their expectation has not been fully fullfiled but we all know it is because of the restricted mandate of IGF.

 

Personally, I have problems understanding the purpose of question 13.It seems to me that question 11 and 12 are already focused on eventual changes produced by IGF, and 14 -16 on eventual continuation of IGF. So I would think on rephrasing the question 13 at least.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

(Writer O)

 

Colleagues,

 

I reference the discussion at the last MAG meeting about the issues 

with the high number of workshops and parallell sessions. Because of 

these issues, I encourage the Secretariat to include text in the form 

(and other places) that we will will stronger than before encourage 

people to merge workshops, and to be more (which I hope was the 

consensus at the MAG meeting) specific. I.e. more detailed instead of 

more broad. At least I think we should encourage the applicant to not 

only say "Access" but also add "keywords" so that it will be easier to 

understand what workshops are similar and not.

 

 

(Writer N)

 

Dear Markus,

I support the edits proposed by Writer G to the list of questions for the IGF review consultation.

I also support Writer A's suggested rephrasing of question 5 to ensure clarity.

 

 

 

(Markus Kummer)

 

Dear colleagues,



 

Many thanks for your helpful comments. After reading your comments I tried to overhaul the list, taking on board the suggestion first made by Writer G and supported by others, to divide the questions into two groups. I also thought that Writer T made an excellent point, namely that it would be better to keep the questionnaire short. I regrouped some of the questions and left out others, in particular the question about the financing, as it might be counterproductive to start a discussion which can be divisive among Member States.



 

It is our intention, to post the questionnaire by midweek. Please let us know if you have any suggestions for improvement.


 

ATTACHMENT

 

Formal consultation with Forum participants

 In accordance with Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda

 

 

Questions:

 

The consultations could address the following broad questions:

 

 

Key questions:

 

1.         Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its original five-year mandate, in the view of its stakeholders, and why/why not?

2.         If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, should it be continued in its present form?

3.         If changes are needed, what changes should be made?

 

 

Additional questions:

 

4.         To what extent has the IGF addressed the substantive mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?

5.         To what extent has the IGF respected the WSIS principles?

6.         What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it affected you or your  institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?

7.         How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?

8.         How could these be improved?

 

Click here to read the rest of the document.