1 - 31 March, 2009 (Part 2)

 

 

(Writer E)

 

Markus & all,

 

I think it looks OK (and thanks to Writer T and you for proposing a

shorter, more to-the-point version).

 

I have only one suggestion. Many of the IGF process' participants are

not necessarily pinned to a single institution or government. Thus, I

suggest the corresponding part of question 6 to be rephrased as:

 

6. [...] Has it affected you or your institution/government/stakeholder

group?[...]

 

Many participants have proactive involvement which is broader than a

single institution or government.

 

 

 

 

(Writer D)

 

Dear Markus,



 

Thanks for this revised version, more concise and to the point. Here are a few comments (see text below).


 

I suggest to reverse the order of the two proposed blocks and separate the questions in three sets instead of two : Evaluation, Continuation and Evolution, rather than start directly with the question on Continuation. The order would thus be more logical. 



 

I tried to reintroduce the notion of expectations in relation to the first question on mandate. And the possible improvements (question 8) is moved to the last question. I also suggest to replace "original five-year mandate" by "initial five-year period". Capacity-building could be reinserted after "catalyst for change".



 

I also incorporated Writer E's comment that I find useful. 



 

The clean version would look as follows (a version with track changes is attached):


Questions:

 

The consultations could address the following broad questions:

 

 

Evaluation:

 

To what extent has the IGF met the expectations set by its Tunis Agenda mandate?

To what extent has the IGF implemented the WSIS principles?

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

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?

 

Continuation:

 

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

 

Evolution:

 

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

If changes are needed, what improvements would you recommend?

 

 

Hope this helps

 

 

 

 

(Writer K)

 

 

Hello Markus, hello everybody,

 

I think the questionnaire looks much better now.

 

The only changes I would recommend concern the way the questions are

phrased. To facilitate the task for the reader, questions should be

phrased in the same way whenever possible. The first two questions allow

for yes/no answers. The same style could be used for the additonal

questions 4 to 7, each followed by "why/why not" as in question 1.

 

Question 8 should probably read: How could the effectiveness of IGF

processes be improved.

 

 

 

 

 

(Writer V)

 

Dear Writer D, dear collegues,


 

thanks for your suggestions and comments, my apologies for my late comments.


 

Writer D, my concern with your revised text is the sentence:



 

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



 

Reading Par. 72 of the Tunis Agenda, I think the word "implemented" is not included among the IGF mandate and mission.



 

Perhaps verbs like "respected" or "addressed" may be more adequate.



 

Best regards

 

 

 

 

(Writer D)

 

Dear Writer V,



If "implemented" is too strong and could give the impression that it refers to an action by the IGF on other actors, we could use "embodied" as it is expicitly IGF's mandate to :

 

Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes (para 72 i)

 

"Respected", as Writer G suggested, is a default possiblity.

 

Best

 

 

 

 

(Writer D)

 

Dear all,



 

Writer U's concern could be justified if the wording of the questions seem to imply a revision of the mandate, which is out of scope of the consultations. 



 

However, they are a good opportunity to sollicit suggestions for improvement within the current mandate, as we have progressively developed the working methods of the IGF.



 

If my structure in three parts is accepted, maybe the way forward is to use as third item a single question, written as follows :



 

Evolution (or "Possible Evolutions"):


 

6. If the Forum is to be continued, what improvements would you recommend regarding its working methods?

 

Best

 

 

 

 

(Writer N)

 

Dear all,

 

I support the use of the word 'improvements' in question 6, and agree that questions 2 and 3 should be deleted.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

(Markus Kummer)

 

Dear colleagues,



 

Many thanks once again for your valuable comments. I have looked at all of them and have taken on board those to which nobody objected. I also deleted two more questions as suggested by Writers D and U. This brings us down to 6 questions. 



 

I don't think therefore that there is any need for sub-titles, as Writer D suggested. However, I have taken up his suggestion for reordering them. The logical flow implies that the first four questions take stock, the fifth - whether or not to continue - is the central question and the last one addresses possible changes. Janis is right: we have to be careful there and should not imply that we are asking for comments regarding the mandate. This will be up to UN Member States to discuss. However, I agree with Bertrand that we ought to seek comments with regard to working methods, functioning and processes - that is changes within the existing mandate.

 



A few comments on some of the suggestions that I did not pick up: the term 'expectations' was rejected by some as being too loose.



 

The reference to capacity building was rejected on the grounds that other parts of the mandate were equally important and should therefore also be mentioned. Instead of adding, I thought it would be better to keep it short and simple, as suggested by Lorena. 



 

I hope that this latest version meets all your concerns. My main concern is to make the questionnaire look as neutral as possible and to avoid any term that may appear to be loaded or prejudging.


 

ATTACHMENT

 

Formal consultation with Forum participants

In accordance with Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda

 

 

 

Questions:

 

The consultation 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 embodied the WSIS principles?

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

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?

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

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

 

 

 

 

(Writer D)

 

Dear Markus,

I support your new version. One possible additional change to make it even more concise (5 questions) would be to lump the two first ones together, as :


1. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS Principles and addressed the substantive mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?

 

But I can live with the two questions separated.

 

 

 

 

(Writer H)

 

Thanks, Markus. Good revisions.

 

 

 

 

(Writer D)

 

Dear all,

In reference to [EDITED] comments during the Hyderabad IGF regarding the importance of Social Networks and the likelyhood that they will develop internal processes of consultation on privacy, I thought interesting to share with you the following links :


Facebook Opens Governance of Service and Policy Process to Users

Releases Draft Principles and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities For User Review, Comment and Vote

http://www.facebook.com/press/releases.php?p=85587

 

A special group has been set up on Facebook for that purpose, and I noticed that a certain number of IGF participants have already registered :

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=69048030774

 

This is I believe a very important development that could be studied and explored further in the IGF in Sharm El Sheikh, both in the workshops and in the main session on Privacy.

 

 

 

 

(Writer E)

 

Looks OK to me, Markus.

 

 

 

 

(Writer K)

 

Hello all, please allow me to repeat my comment. I still think that

questions starting with "to what extent..." followed by complex

references such as WSIS principles and Tunis Agenda are not easy to

answer. Such questions assume experts who have followed the entire

process over many years, if not the entire WSIS phase. If we want to

reach out mainly to such epxerts, the questionnaire is fine. If we to

reach out beyond insiders, it would be good to rephrase at least some of

the questions in simpler terms.

 

For example, could we not disaggregate the question as to whether or not

the IGF has addressed the substantive mandate and have some simple

questions such as:

 

*Does the IGF address key elements of Internet governance?

* Does the IGF address address emerging issues?

 

Such simple questions allow people to answer with yes or no added by

explanations if they so choose. Questions starting with "to what extent"

are less inviting because they are not easy to answer.

 

Should I be the only who has these concerns, I will not longer insist.

 

 

 

 

(Writer E)

 

Dear Writer K, I might be wrong, but my feeling is that this change would

lead many people to provide yes or no or just "to a certain extent"

answers and I think what we are looking for is not just a simple or

quantitative survey but try as much as possible to get more detailed

responses, even if several end up returning trivial replies.

 

 

 

(Writer K)

 

Hi Writer E,

 

I see your point. Still, I would like to understand who intend to

address with the questionnaire. If the questionnaire aims at the small

number of stakeholder organizations that usually reply to requests for

comments, then the questionnaire's form doesn't matter. If we intend to

reach a broader audience, we should phrase it in more accessible ways.

 

 

 

 

(Writer R)

 

Dear Markus, 

The questionnaire looks fine for me. It captures, in my point of view, the different suggestions that have been made. 



 

 

 

 

(Writer X)

 

I agree.

 

 

 

(Markus Kummer)

 

Dear Writer K,



 

My apologies if I ignored your earlier comment: I must have misunderstood your intentions. As you explained in your subsequent posting more in detail what you are suggesting, allow me to react:



 

The aim of the exercise is to receive a reasoned and differentiated feed-back as an input into our consultations. All the comments will be reflected in a synthesis paper that is conceived as a rolling document, with a first version for the May consultations, a second version for the September consultations and a final version for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. I don't think that we would reach out to a broader audience by making the question simpler. However, we would run the risk of receiving bland and plain feedback which would be of little use as an basis for our discussions. We simply don't have the means for a quantitative survey based on representative samples - this would need an external evaluation.



 

Furthermore, it would not be that easy to devise a simplified questionnaire. The devil, as always, is in the detail. While terms like 'mandate' and 'WSIS principles' may sound arcane to the outsider, I feel that we cannot do without them. Also, these concepts are broad enough to cover everything the IGF has been dealing with. On the other hand, highlighting some elements of the mandate without mentioning others, would bring us back to square one and we would end up asking questions with regard to every element of the mandate, thereby lengthening the questionnaire and making it more complex, rather than simplifying and shortening it, as Writer T suggested initially



 

As the last version of the questionnaire I sent out seems to have fairly broad support, I hope to count on your understanding that you will join the general consensus.



 

Best regards
Markus


 

 

 

 

(Writer K)

 

Hello Markus, hello all,

 

Markus KUMMER wrote:

> Dear Writer K,

 

[...]

>

> As the last version of the questionnaire I sent out seems to have fairly

> broad support, I hope to count on your understanding that you will join

> the general consensus.

 

As long as we are all aware of the purpose of the questionnaire and the

specific audience it addresses, I am fine with our choice.

 

 

 

 

(Writer G)

 

I think you've done an excellent job, Markus. Thank you!

 

 

 

 

(Writer O)

 

So do I. Thanks Markus!

 

 

 

 

(Writer J)

 

Hi all

 

For your information, we are organizing one day discussions on IGF in

West Africa, within the framework of a regional meeting on legal and

policy issues of the information society in West Africa, from 11 to 13

March, in Senegal, Dakar. See file attached for the agenda on IGF.

 

Thanks to colleagues from the Senegalese, Nigerian governments,

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Diplo Foundation, Economic Commission of

West African States, etc, present. Unfortunately we were not able to

involve some other key people but we will keep you informed about

conclusions.

 

Regards

 

 

 

 

(Writer V)

 

Dear Markus,
I think this is a very good document.
Thanks for your efforts.
Regards

 

 

 

(Writer E)

 

It captures it very well for me.

 

I Agree.

 

Thank you Markus!

 

 

 

(Writer J)

 

Colleagues

 

Here's the blog where we are putting information related to the whole

workshop.

 

http://blogs.haayo.org/westafict/

 

Some participants are twittering (English) or live blogging (French) the

event - see links on the blog http://blogs.haayo.org/westafict/

 

 

 

 

(Markus Kummer)

 

Dear colleagues,



Please find attached a revised version of the programme paper, taking into account the discussions of our last MAG meeting. In essence, it is a combination of the previous programme paper with the summary report of the MAG meeting. It is our intention to post the paper early next week. 

Please let us know by Friday end of business should you have any comments or suggestions for improvement.



Best regards


Markus


 

ATTACHMENT

 

 

Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Programme, Format and Schedule for the 2009 meeting

1.

2. I. Introduction

This paper describes a proposal for the programme, format and schedule of the fourth IGF meeting, which is to take place on 15-18 November 2009 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. This version of the paper takes into account comments made at the open consultations held on 23-24 Feb 2009 in Geneva and the discussions held by the Multistakeholder Advisory Group on 25-26 Feb 2009, as well as written contributions received in the stocktaking process and comments made during the Hyderabad stocktaking session.

 

As in the past years, the paper is defined as a work in progress and planned as a rolling document that will be updated regularly based on contributions, open consultations and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings.

 

All of the contributions and open consultation transcripts will be posted on the IGF Web site throughout the preparatory process of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. The readers of this paper are encouraged to read those contributions and the open consultations transcripts for further details and in depth discussions.

 

There were some common threads that emerged in the first phase of the stock-taking process. While the innovations introduced in Hyderabad were generally well received, it was also felt that there was room for improvement, notably in the following areas:

 

  • Involvement of young people;
  • Gender balance;
  • Geographical balance;
  • Linkages between the main sessions and the other events;
  • Remote participation.

 

Furthermore, it was pointed out that the cross-cutting themes of development and capacity-building had been somewhat neglected and that more attention should be paid to these issues.

 

The view was also held that some of the issues had progressed to the point that they should now be dealt with in other formats, such as round tables.

 

Lastly, there was general support of keeping ‘meeting free’ time slots and leaving enough space in the programme for spontaneous ad-hoc meetings.

 

This paper tries to accommodate the above comments and aims to provide a structure and framework for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. It reflects an ongoing discussion and will be further refined in light of additional comments and subsequent meetings.

 

II. Programme

 

3. The objective of the programme is to maximize the opportunity of open dialogue and the exchange of ideas; to try and create feedback loops between the different types of sessions; to create opportunities to share best practices and experiences; to listen, dialogue and learn as well as to identify key themes that would, in the future, benefit from the multistakeholder perspective of the IGF.

4. “Internet – an opportunity for all” was suggested as the overall title of the meeting. While the suggestion found some support, it was also felt that the wording was too general and that there was a need for further reflection on the title. ¨Internet rights and principles¨ was another proposal for an overall theme, but the view was held that this would be too specific. The point was made that the overall theme should take into account the challenges to the global economic downturn.

5. The programme outline takes into account the comments made so far. In particular, it recognizes that different themes need to be dealt with differently. Three formats have been proposed:

Type A): 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.

 

Type B): 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.

 

Type C): 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.

 

These format types are proposed to preserve and enhance the positive values of the things that worked well in the previous meetings while also trying to improve those things that did not work quite so well. The informal, interactive multistakeholder format was generally seen as one of the key factors for the success of the first three meetings and will be maintained and enhanced as a guiding principle in all cases.

 

Participation will follow the format used at the previous meetings and all entities and persons with proven interest, expertise and experience in matters related to Internet governance may apply to register as participants.

 

The basic format of the previous meetings, with main sessions, workshops and other events, will be maintained.

 

The proposed outline would include the following programme blocks.

 

  • On the first morning, there will be a session giving participants background on Internet governance in general and the IGF in particular. The intent of the session is to improve participants’ ability to engage in and benefit from the IGF meeting. It will explain the functioning of the IGF and the issues it has been dealing with. The session will also give an overview of the programme and allow regional and national meetings to report to the IGF.

 

· The traditional opening ceremony/opening session will be held in the afternoon of the first day. It will be followed by a key note panel of two or three high-level personalities. The suggestion was made that the panel should deal with the current economic situation and its relevance to the Internet.

· Critical Internet Resources will be the focus of the morning of the second day. ¨The evolution of Internet governance arrangements¨ was proposed as a possible title, with ¨Internationalization of critical Internet resources management¨ and ¨Managing critical Internet resources¨ as alternative titles. However, the view was also held that any title should be based on agreed WSIS language.

6. Possible topics to be addressed under this heading included but were not restricted to:

o IP address allocation in general, including IPv6 allocation;

o The Joint Project Agreement (JPA);

o The IANA contract;

o The importance of new TLDs and IDNs for development;

o Enhanced cooperation.

7.

8. There was a general agreement that no topic, however contentious, should be excluded from the discussions under this heading. It was recognized that this cluster of issues could benefit most from an open discussion.

· Security / Openness will be the focus of the afternoon of the second day. One possible title mentioned for this cluster of issues was: “Balancing privacy, openness and security”.

9. There was a general understanding that this balancing effort should not be a zero sum game, but rather a win-win situation. Issues to be discussed could include:

o Respect for privacy as a business advantage and issues such as identity theft, identity fraud, and information leakage;

o Web 2.0: social networks and privacy, e.g. control of one’s own data and data retention;

o URL blocking;

o Regulatory models for privacy and cybersecurity;

o Ensuring the open architecture of the Internet;

o Net Neutrality;

o Enabling frameworks for freedom;

o Content blocking;

o Freedom of speech;

o The ethical dimensions of the Internet.

10.

11. While some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and principles’ as a cross-cutting theme, the view was also held that there was no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting.

12.

This cluster of issues has been identified as one that could benefit from being introduced by a panel, followed by an open discussion.

 

  • Access will be the focus of the morning of the third day. Issues mentioned included:

o National and international regulatory issues;

o National and regional backbones;

o Infrastructure;

o Interconnection costs;

o Enabling IXPs;

o Modes of access and regulatory challenges;

o Safety and redundancy of access, e.g. cable cuts;

o Issues in mobile access.

 

The importance of developing infrastructure was seen as part of kick-starting the economy. While some of the access issues, such as IXPs, might be best dealt with by round tables, others, such as mobile access issues, might benefit from being introduced by panels,

 

  • The afternoon of the third day will be reserved for the reporting back of smaller sessions, for example round table discussions, and workshops. Round table discussions could be held to deal with issues where there is a reasonable chance of participants agreeing to take action together. These issues include the empowerment and protection of children and the accessibility for people with disabilities. The respective dynamic coalitions would be asked to help prepare these round tables and there was a general agreement that due care should be taken to ensure a reasonable balance is achieved. Other round table discussions on other issues would be defined in light of proposals for workshops. Multilingualism was mentioned as another possible issue area for round tables, including access to local content. Organizers will be asked to link their reports to the broader discussions that have taken place, so that the report becomes a relevant and valuable contribution to the meeting.

 

· ‘Taking Stock and the Way Forward: Tunis Agenda Paragraph 76’ will be the focus of full three hour session on the morning of the fourth day. The morning will be reserved for the “formal consultations with Forum participants” on the “desirability of the continuation of the Forum” as stipulated by Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda. These consultations will be preceded by an online process in advance of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting, starting with a questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat and a rolling document synthesizing all commentaries received and posted on the IGF Web site. It is the aim to produce a synthesis paper in all six UN languages as a direct input into the discussion of this agenda item.

13.

· One slot for a session on the afternoon of the fourth day remains open for the time being. It will be filled in the light of further discussions.

14.

· The traditional closing ceremony will be held on the afternoon of the fourth day.

 

III. General Principles

 

15. The following principles are established for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting:

i. All organizers of official events (workshops, best practices, etc.) are asked to commit themselves to submitting a report on their event. Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer from scheduling an event for the following year;

ii. Those who did not submit a report for their 2008 event, will not be included in the schedule;

iii. Dynamic Coalitions will only be scheduled if they have submitted activity reports for 2009;

iv. No official events will be scheduled to start after 1800 hours;

v. No official events will be held during the lunch-break between 1300-1400 hours;

vi. The efforts for remote participation in 2009 will be enhanced based on experience gained in 2008 in order to enable effective and interactive remote participation;

vii. In addition, there will an opportunity for ad-hoc meetings to be scheduled which will not be part of the official programme.

 

16. There should be no prepared statements read out during the main sessions. However, prepared statements can be recorded by any participant and will be made available on the IGF YouTube channel. Efforts will be made to improve the promotion of this possibility. Prepared statements can be recorded and submitted in advance to the IGF Secretariat.

17.

18. IV. Meeting types

 

19. A. Main Sessions

20. All of the main sessions will take place in the main meeting hall and they will be organized around the various themes. The will all have live transcription in English and will be interpreted in the six official UN languages.

21. (a) Open Dialogue Sessions

Some of the main sessions may take the form of a dialogue among participants. The dialogue sessions will have neither panellists nor designated respondents, but will have a chairperson and a moderator to lead and stimulate the discussion. The goal of these sessions will be to bring as many participants into the dialogue as is possible and will allow for a discussion with maximum interaction among the participants.

 

This is generally the format that is best suited for the Type A themes.

 

(b) Panel Sessions

 

The sessions will be introduced by an expert panel, followed by an interactive discussion with participants. Panel Discussions will be prepared in co-operation with the MAG and the organizers of the related workshops as well as other relevant institutions, as appropriate. One of the key considerations in the selections of panellists is the multistakeholder approach and the need to present different perspectives on the issues under discussion.

 

This is generally the format that will be used for Type B themes.

 

(c) Other sessions

 

On the first day, the first half of the morning will be dedicated background session for new and returning IGF participants.

 

A separate session held on the second half of the first morning, will provide a chance for regional and national IGF meetings held in 2009 to give a report on their activities.

 

The afternoon of the first day will include the Opening Ceremony, followed by an opening session featuring speakers from the various stakeholder groups. The first day will close with a keynote panel.

 

On day three in the afternoon, a session will be held to bring together the discussions that have been held in workshops as well as other smaller sessions such as round table discussions. Some of the sessions reporting in will be related to topics that have been designated as Type C themes, while others will be related to workshops set up in response to the open call for themes.

 

On the fourth day, the morning session will be dedicated to the subject of Taking Stock and looking Forward: Tunis Agenda Paragraph 76. In the afternoon, one session slot is still open. It will be filled in the light of further discussions. The last session will be the Closing Ceremony.

 

B. Round Table discussions

 

On days two and three, four round table discussions could be held for three hours each. These sessions could be held in a room setup for a large scale round table discussion, which could be moderated, with participants taking part as equals. The sessions could focus on issues where there is a reasonable chance of participants agreeing to take action together. However, the point was also made that the role and function of round tables needed further discussion.

 

  1. Duration of Round Tables: 3 hours.

 

C. Workshops

 

Workshops are designed to explore issues from different perspectives.

 

All interested stakeholders have been invited to submit proposed themes for workshops. To the extent possible, workshops topics that are closely related with be scheduled as a single collaborative workshop. Organizers will be invited to work with the IGF secretariat in setting up workshops on those topics selected for workshops.

 

The scheduling of all workshops will be determined by the IGF Secretariat on the basis of maintaining a balance across the issues, efficient use of meeting space and an attempt to avoid conflicts in topic or speakers.

 

  1. Duration of workshops: 90 minutes.
  2. Each workshop will be required to produce a report on the workshop.
  3. First deadline for providing proposals: 15 April 2009.
  4. Deadline for providing speakers list: 30 June 2009.

 

Preference will be given to focused workshops relating to the IGF main themes and cross-cutting priorities of development and capacity building.

 

 

D. Open Forums

 

 

22. All major organizations dealing with Internet governance related issues will be given a slot, at their request, to hold an open forum in order to present and discuss their activities. The meetings should focus on the organization’s activities during the past 12 months and allow sufficient time for questions and discussions.

· Duration of Open Forums: 90 minutes.

· Each Open Forum will be required to produce a report on the meeting.

· Deadline for completing programmes and providing speakers list: 30 June 2009.

 

 

E. Best Practice Forums

 

23. The aim of these sessions is to demonstrate, in a multi-stakeholder environment, some of the best practices that have been adopted with regard to the key IGF themes in general and to the development and deployment of the Internet in particular. The sessions can have either a thematic or a country focus. The presentations will be based on a common template. Presentations should not only cover practices that were successful, but also focus on challenges and mistakes. Thus, ‘lessons learned’ would be an important output of these sessions. They will be moderated by independent experts/hosts and participants will be given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. The aim is to provide a space to discuss what constitutes a ‘best practice’ and share relevant information that can be transferred to other situations and strengthen capacity-building activities.

l Duration of Best Practice Forums: 90 minutes.

l Each Best Practice Forum will be required to produce a report on the meeting.

l Deadline for providing speakers list: 30 June 2009.

 

 

F. Dynamic Coalitions

 

24. The meeting will provide space for active Dynamic Coalitions to meet and further develop their proposals. Only Dynamic Coalitions that have submitted a report of their activities for 2008 will be scheduled for a meeting slot.

25. All Dynamic Coalitions are requested to present a report on their achievements so far in general and on their activities since the Rio meeting in particular. The reports will be posted on the IGF Web site.

26. Dynamic coalition on specific themes may also be invited to participate in the planning of Round Table Discussions.

 

l Duration of these meetings: 90 minutes.

l Deadline for submission of reports: 31 August 2009.

 

 

G. Other Meetings

 

In general, meeting rooms that are not otherwise booked will be given, as available, to interested stakeholder groups on a first-come-first-served basis, in accordance with United Nations procedures and practice. A number of rooms will be reserved to accommodate ad-hoc requests.

 

V. Logistics

 

A. Meeting Rooms

 

The following meeting rooms will be available:

 

  • Main Meeting Hall, for opening and closing ceremonies and main sessions, seating 1000 participants in a mixed classroom/theatre style setting. All proceedings in this room will be video cast and will be rendered in real-time transcription. Interpretation will be provided in all the six UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) for all meetings taking place in the main hall. Remote participants will be encouraged to participate actively. (Technical details for remote participation are dealt with below.)

Comment Box 1: The following additional meeting rooms are available:

· 4 rooms seating 180 participants in a classroom setting.

One of the above room will have facilities for interpretation (interpreters can be provided by workshop organizers, if desired).

· 2 rooms seating 80 participants in a classroom setting.

· 4 rooms seating between 40 and 60 participants in a round table setting.

· All events held in breakout rooms will be audio cast and will have access to remote participation facilities.

· Each meeting room will have a computer and projector available for presentations.

 

The Secretariat is responsible for the allocation of all meeting rooms.

 

 

B. Other facilities

 

l An AV-studio to record prepared statements. The studio can also be reserved for TV interviews.

l A media centre, with a room for media conferences, seating 250 journalists in theatre style setting and workspace for journalists.

l An “IGF village”, located next to the Main Meeting Hall, to allow interested entities to present themselves for free and have meetings and poster sessions. The village will include squares (with chairs and rostrum) for ad-hoc meetings and poster sessions. This “IGF village” will be organized in the form of different “neighbourhoods” or thematic clusters.

l Restaurants/refreshments:

 A restaurant with moderately priced food is available in the Conference Centre.

 Coffee/Tea will be served in the conference premises.

.

 

Event organizers and participants with special needs are requested to contact the Secretariat and communicate their requirements, including requests for interpretation, by 31 August 2009.

 

 

C. Remote participation

 

A public remote chat capability will be provided for the Main Meeting Hall and all other meeting rooms. Other provisions for remote access, including Regional Hub meetings, will be announced in September. Regional stakeholders interested in organizing a hub are advised to contact the IGF secretariat as soon as possible.

 

 

VI. Schedule

 

A proposal for a main session schedule is made available below. The titles in the schedule are working titles. They are indicative of the broad themes to be dealt with and will need to be discussed at the next open consultations and defined at the next MAG meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday 15 Nov

Monday 16 Nov

Tuesday 17 Nov

Wednesday 18 Nov

1000 – 11:30

Internet governance – setting the scene

Critical Internet Resources

Access

Taking Stock and Looking forward: Tunis Agenda

Para 76

 

11:30

- 13:00

National and Regional Meetings

13:00 –

14:00

Lunch

15:00

-

16:30

Opening Ceremony/session

Security and Openness

Reporting back from Round Tables and Workshops

tbd

16:30 –

18:00

Keynote panel

Closing /Ceremony

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Writer J)

 

Dear Markus, colleagues

 

Please find attached recommendations adopted on IGF in West Africa

following the one day forum we organized (and also, for those it might

interest, recommendations on legal frameworks of the information society

in West Africa, discussed during the first two days).

 

Regarding IGF in West Africa, it appears to me that in general people

don't feel at ease or don't well understand the international process

itself (even thought they have a better understanding or are even

experts in issues, taken in isolation, encompassed in the Internet

Governance concept) and the review is hard for them to be undertaken.

 

We will update in the coming days the website with recommendations

(translated in adequate languages) and presentations, more photos.

 

Regards

 

ATTACHMENT

 

Saly 2 - Recommendations for

Strengthening Regional Internet Governance in West Africa

During the regional meeting organized by the Panos Institute West Africa (PIWA), on

“Legal and policy frameworks for the information society in West Africa”, in Saly, Senegal,

with the support of the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), a one day

consultative forum was held to discuss West African participation in the Internet

governance Forum (IGF).

The aim was to inform stakeholders on the IGF processes, its implementation, and the

current on-going review; and to further discuss its interests and impacts for West Africa

on the road to the fourth annual meeting of the Forum in Egypt.

The forum highlighted the following priorities and recommendations for consideration

during IG discussions and deliberations:

Awareness: Further develop awareness and capacity building on IG and its processes;

Access to infrastructure: With regards to technical infrastructure, regional backbone

and internet exchange points (IXPs), government should ensure the creation of policies

to support regional infrastructure development with support for cross border connectivity,

right of passage for cable infrastructure and open access to landing stations in West

African countries;

Open Standards and Interoperability: Understanding the role of government as a

producer, purchaser and regulator of information, government should ensure its services

are available to all by developing interoperability standards that allow universal access;

Internet Security, Safety and Trust: Building trust and confidence in online services

to be able to allow wider usage of eGovernance facilities, eCommerce and

implementation of other online activities;

Development of Multilingual and Local Content: Providing useful and relevant

content in local and national languages, meeting the needs of West Africans, as well as

promoting internationalized domain names;

National and Regional Top Level Domain Names: Establishment of, and the

strengthening of a West African and continental identity through names such as .africa

and a regional West African domain to ensure localisation of cost and traffic within the

continent;

Transparency: Promoting transparency in governance at national and regional levels in

the information society;

Collaborative Approach: Strengthening of multistakeholder approaches in internet

governance, policy and decision making processes, through face to face meetings and

remote participation;

Digital literary and technologies: Bridging the literacy gap and develop better access

to ICTs for all citizens and communities;

Role of Regional Governance and Economic Commissions: Encouraging regional

institutions such as the ECOWAS to be more involved in IG processes;

Funding: national and international partners should earmark adequate budgetary

resources to sustain IG processes;

Regional and National IG Fora: participants recommend that ECOWAS and other key

stakeholders organise a wider, higher level platform involving more West African

stakeholders, as well as national and African wide discussions, prior to the Sharm-El-

Cheikh IGF to better prepare African and West African responses.

Saly, 13 March 2009

List of institutions

Agence de Régulation des Postes et Télécommunications (ARTP) du Senegal ; Article 19

Africa ; West Africa Telecommunications Regulators Assembly (WATRA) ;

Communications Commission of Kenya ; Center for Media Studies and Peace Building

(CEMESP, Liberia) ; Centre National de Presse Norbert Zongo (Burkina Faso) ; Centre

d'Etudes sur les Sciences et Techniques de l'Information (CESTI) ; CITS/University of

Lagos (Nigeria); Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS); Connexion

Sans Frontieres (Senegal) ; Datatech (Mali); DiploFoundation; Electronic Frontier

Foundation (USA); Global Voices Online (USA – Sub Saharan Africa); GoreeTIC/APC;

Haut Commissariat sur les TIC du Niger ; Information Technology (Industry) Association

of Nigeria (ITAN); Panos Institute West Africa (PIWA) ; Kictanet (Kenya) ; Kontemporary

Komputers (Nigeria) ; leblogdeyoro (Côte d'Ivoire) ; Ministère en charge des TIC du

Bénin ; Ministère en charge des TIC du Mali ; Ministère en charge des TIC du Senegal ;

Ministry of Information and Communication (Sierra Leone); National Information

Technology Development Agency (NITDA, Nigeria); Open Society Institute West Africa

(OSIWA); Penplusbytes (Ghana); PressAfrik.com (Senegal); Radio1 FM (The Gambia) ;

Réseau des Journalistes pour les Droits de l'Homme (Niger) ; the

Independant (Uganda) ;Université Gaston Berger (Senegal); University of Ghana, Legon

(Ghana) ; University of Maryland (USA).

 

 

 

 

(Writer G)

 

 

This is a dual purpose message:

 

First, referring to Writer E's comment I have no problem with taking up

this topic. I would like to reinforce your point that several forums

have attempted and failed to come to terms with the issue. As you

note ITU's SG.3 has occupied a lot of time and generated much heat,

but so far no results. The issue was also studied by the APEC

Telecommunications working group. There, some excellent definitional

work was done, but the effort ended in the conclusion that it would

not be possible to obtain enough data from ISPs and network operators

to permit a conclusion. Interestingly, as that study went on,

competition was rapidly being introduced in the telecommunications

world, with the result that the problem became much less important, at

least in the Asia-Pacific region. I understand that in other parts of

the world, a competitive environment has yet to materialize, and so

there is good reason to look at the issue today. All this is to say

that the issue remains pertinent, and in my view would fit well into

the IGF's agenda, but it needs to be discussed in such a way that all

the relevant issues are fully explored, including the need for a pro-

competitive regulatory environment and competitive service provision.

 

Second, I have only one minor comment on the excellent program paper

Markus circulated. In the discussion of workshop proposals (section

IV. C.), I would add a final sentence that says "As in previous years,

workshops must include a balance of stakeholders and viewpoints in

order to be accepted into the program." Otherwise, I think it's ready

to go, and we are far ahead of where we have been in mid-March other

years. Congratulations!

 

 

 

 

 

(Writer E)

 

Hi Writer G,

 

Thanks for supporting this.

 

 

 

(Markus Kummer)

 

Dear colleagues,

 



A quick note to inform you that we have posted the programme paper. Many thanks for those of you who provided input, both to the list and offline. We have taken them on board to the extent possible, without however altering much of the wording taken from the MAG report, as this represent the present state of our discussions. It is understood that the part relating to the substance will be the core of our next meeting and will need to be further refined.



 

We have opened the paper for comments and will release a revised version prior to the next round of open consultations.