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

Tue Jul 28 01:13:42 PDT 2009

And, may I also say that this statement is supported by ISOC LA?

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Mike Todd,
>
> Thank you for your attention and comments. I will delete the comment in
> parenthesis under point 6) and under point 5) I would add " Yes, during the
> first five years IGF has been a very successful experiment in
> multi-stakholder
> interaction, and has been valuable in terms of its indirect contributions
> to the global policy making process. The forthcoming IGFs are likely to have
> greater and more direct impact on the policy making process.The fothcoming
> phase of IGF could perhaps emerge or at least pave way for an age of
> participative global policy making."
>
> Thank you again.
>
> Shiva.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Mike Todd <mike.todd92 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Siva,
>> ISOC-LA (Internet Society, Los Angeles Chapter) finds your document very
>> interesting, raises issues germane to all of our (Chapters in general and
>> specifically) concerns, and appears to raise issues needing further study
>> and information gathering/sharing as stated in a number of ways in the
>> document.
>>
>> In that the document makes no general proposals without link to IGF
>> proceedings, we see no reason to withhold general Chapter approval and
>> identification as a document that represents the views and concerns of more
>> than just one ISOC Chapter.
>>
>> Just a couple of detailed comments:
>>
>> Item 5 "Yes" answer begs for a reason.
>>
>> Item 6 has a comment that a statement in parentheses within item 6 may be
>> deleted. We find that removing that statement would have no negative impact
>> on the document's tone, content and relevant issues.
>>
>> We thank you and ISOC India Chennai, for sharing your work product and
>> offering to elevate it's importance by sharing with other Chapters.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Todd
>> President, Mike Todd Associates - www.MikeTodd.com
>>
>> President, Internet Society Los Angeles Chapter - www.ISOC-LA.org
>>  toddm at isoc-la.org
>>
>> Founder, Digital Divide Task Force, www.ddtf.org (rebuilding in AZ)
>>  miketodd at ddtf.org  (rebuilding in AZ)
>>
>> Western Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (Western TAAC)
>>  Phoenix, Arizona program expansion center
>> Western Research Application Center, Viterbi School of Engineering,
>> University of Southern California
>>
>> University of Phoenix email: mltodd at email.phoenix.edu
>> Business email:  miketodd at miketodd.com
>> Postal mail: P.O. Box 670A, Cashion, AZ 85329-0670
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
>> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>>> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20090728/90b2420e/attachment.htm>