[Chapter-delegates] Fwd: ISOC India Chennai inputs to the IGF Review Process.

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello

This is a request for quick comments on the propriety of the following
comments sent to IGF as from an ISOC Chapters. These comments are an
elaboration of my earlier comments as an individual, but this expanded
version has been sent to the chapter list for comments, there hasn't been
any adverse comments, so I intend submitting this as inputs from ISOC India
Chennai.

Chapter delegates may differ from the views expressed, but what is requested
is a quick pointer to say if the language is OK, and if this OK to go as
ISOC Chapter inputs.

These inputs are overdue by 10 days, and if this is ok, I will send a
request to the IGF to consider accepting these inputs.

Thank you
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
ISOC India Chennai.




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Subject: ISOC India Chennai inputs to the IGF Review Process.
To: isocmadras at googlegroups.com


Hello

As independent inputs, I have submitted my comments earlier to the IGF which
can be seen at page
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=7

I have drafted a more elaborate response which could be agreeable to the
members of our Chapter, especially to those who are familiar with the IGF
process. If this is agreeable, these comments could go the IGF Secretariat
as ISOC India Chennai inputs, rather than as independent inputs.

Please review the following statement, and state if there is anything
objectionable with some quick comments, either on the list of by email or by
phone. I would also be seeking some advice from other Chapters on the
propriety of this being sent as comments in the name of the chapter.

The review process was open for inputs until the 15th July. So, please send
in some quick comments or indicate your consent. If there are no objections
from the chapter and if the advise from more experienced participants of the
IGF process from other chapters is positive, I will make a request to the
IGF Secretariat to include these inputs.

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

 Response to the Questionnaire on  the IGF Review Process.

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


IGF Chair Nitin Desai summed it up during the conclusion by drawing an
analogy from the Indian Wedding process: It takes time for the IGF
participants to effectively begin collaborating with each other. In its
third year of the process, the effectiveness is beginning to be visible. By
and large the IGF proceedings reflected the spirit of the Tunis Agenda,
though it can't be denied that there is ample room for scientific
improvements to the process.

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


To some extent..

( I would rather comment on the inadequacy of the WSIS principles that
contained an imbalance in the fundamental principle of mutli-stakeholderism.
The WSIS had compromised on the mutli-stakeholder principle by allowing a
convenient advantage to one of the stakeholders with a hint of conceding
Public Policy as the sovereign rights to States, rather than as a shared
process. Internet might rather be defined as a trans-sovereign plane as it
indeed is. This may not be interpreted as a disruptive definition, but
instead as a way of describing the true and fundamental nature of this
permeative medium for connecting people around the world. )

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


None in terms of easily measurable, direct impact. The proceedings are
observed with a sense of curiosity by those who have the powers to cause
changes to the fabric of the Internet.. The IGF is an elite or esoteric
arena and from within this circle, it appears to the participants that the
spirited participation within represented or reflected the spirit of the
outside world. Yards away from the IGF venue, neither the significance of
Internet Governance, nor the IGF process to define Internet Governance was
barely understood. More importantly, positive or negative changes in the
Internet Policy arena happened and continues to happen almost in complete
isolation of the deliberations at the IGF.

But, the impact of the IGF could be seen on a deeper level (rather than
superficially).The participants have gained from the flow of knowledge at
the IGF which in turn gets shared and influences the respective stakeholder
groups and others.

Also, the Internet Governance Forum, irrespective of its direct impact on
the policy making process of Governments, is changing the way Government's
perceive Civil Society participation in the policy making process. During
the preparatory phase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an
opportunity to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process and
they are becoming comfortable with the idea and process of consultation.
This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. (The IGF process
promotes faith in the functionality of the participatory governance process
and could inspire National Governments to emulate the participatory process)


Again, the direct impact has been minimal. IGF does not have powers to
decide, not have the powers to recommend. This is a "design" aspect of the
IGF which may be largely preserved. At the same time it is observed that due
to this status of the IGF, the policy making process of National Governments
and Regional Governments have not sufficiently paid attention to the
deliberations at the IGF.

The IGF brings together participants with different expertise from various
stakeholder groups from various geographic regions around the world, who
deliberate on Internet Governance issues but these valuable and meaningful
deliberations have not been systematically channeled to contribute to the
actual policy making process. IGF could devise a system by which
Session/Topic Reports could be generated to summarize the positions of
stakeholder groups on issues deliberated during the IGF.

Though this may not constitute to be a "recommendation" or a "formal
statement" from the IGF, such Session/Topic Reports could be released under
different topic headings and could become Reference Documents to contribute
to the National / Regional policy making process.

Governments could adopt it as a convention to draw resources from the IGF
Reference Papers on the relevant issues/topics while framing proposals for a
new policy / change of an existing policy related to Internet.

The proposed Reference documents could be on broad topics such as Security
or Freedom of Expression to outline the overall IGF position with
sub-sections on stakeholder positions, and also on sub-topics such as a
topic on Cloud Computing or Social Networking. Such Documents would enable
the National / Regional Policy making process to comprehensively and readily
understand the "mood" of the IGF on a topic on which a certain legislation/
directive/ guideline is being considered.

At present decisions are taken by governments and by business corporations
largely in isolation of the IGF deliberations, without  taking into
consideration the concerns of the IGF, nor consider the solutions proposed
by the IGF.

The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat considers
this as an action item and introduce a mechanism to thoroughly record as
audio-visuals collated with text transcripts and presentations to be
archives as source records of each panel discussion, workshop, roundtable,
open forum, or in any other format, in every room. In addition the
Secretariat may also assign neutral staff with synthesing skills to prepare
consensus/ stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.

The IGF Secretariat may also proactively reach out to Governments to urge
them to adopt it as a convention to call for IGF Position papers and related
documents to be used as inputs in their policy making process.


4. 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?


The IGF processes at the IGF paid attention to the participant level
processes and did not address the tasks related to the functioning of the
MAG or Secretariat. These were not the central agenda items. Perhaps in the
forthcoming IGFs sessions such as "Review of the MAG" and "Review of the
Secretariat" could be built in as central agenda items along the lines of
the exemplary, transparent proceedings at ICANN meetings.

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate,
and why/why not?

Yes.

6.If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would
you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?


The IGF needs to be seen as a round-the-year process rather than as a
process that happens during a 3 day period in a year. If this view is taken,
it becomes more important to pay attention to the preparatory and review
process, to inputs as well as outputs and pay attention to how the outputs
are fed into the policy making processes around the world.

What is more important is to tune the IGF deliberations to address the
current developments. This is not happening at the moment and IGF seems to
be happening on a theoretical plane in isolation of the actual changes
happening outside in bits and pieces around the world, which in turn are
policy , legislative and business method changes happening oblivious to the
deliberations and the mood of the IGF.

IGF needs to be funded substantially to further enhance the quality of
programs with   greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects
to be considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants
representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified individuals
with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF participation
needs to be further expanded to invite and include more Civil Society
participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF
arena on various Civil Society causes ; business leaders who are otherwise
committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and
not all governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for
financial reasons, the present participants from Government are not
represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in parenthesis may be
deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly relevant to the point ] and b)
The present participants of the IGF do not represent all participant
segments and geographic regions.

This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability
of various categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants
may help improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of
funds. IGF already has made some funds available for representation from
Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective.

The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the
IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and individual
participants) would be several times
that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF,
as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the
total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum,
which is already spent. For want of a marginal allocation for travel support
to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion
of the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of
participation are compromised.


With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF
should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by unconditional
grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental and
international organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend
uncompromising, comfortable travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead
participants (panel speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees
who are required to be well-received for participation), full and partial
fellowships to a large number of participants with special attention to
participants from unrepresented categories    (unrepresented geographic
regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from
affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ).

Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinions to the
IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially
recommended that such a fund may be built up from contributions that are
unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with stated or
implied conditions about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not
imply that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic conditions
that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the sessions etc. In
this context "unconditional" means something larger. It is to hint at a
system of Travel Grants whereby IGF will pool funds from Business
Corporations, Governments, International Organizations, well funded NGOs and
UN with no implied conditions on the positions to be taken by
participants*)* and may be awarded to panelists and participants
unconditionally.

It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have
significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of
participation.

7. Do you have any other comments?


If stakeholders are very broadly classified as Government, Business and
Civil Society, Governments have the power to participate, Business has the
resources to participate and influence, while the Civil Society has
limitations to be bridged. The MAG could address this imbalance and find a
way to enable Civil Society participation with UNCONDITIONAL grants,
-unconditional- neither stated nor implied.



Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20090727/a203b301/attachment.htm>