All posts in Background papers

[spiderpowa-pdf src=”https://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final11.pdf”]

• The Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet
• Report by Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, on Surveillance (2013)
• International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance
• The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information
• Statement by Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on Mass Surveillance (July 2013)
• UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Freedom Lecture at Leiden University (August 2013)
• The Madrid Privacy Declaration (2009)

1. OBJECTIVES OF BEST BITS

1. To raise the level of shared understanding about related groups, initiatives and issues and their political contexts.     
2. To broaden and diversify participation in the initiatives that participants are  undertaking individually or in smaller networks in the areas of Internet governance and Internet and human rights.
3. To amplify the voice of global civil society at upcoming multilateral Internet governance and Internet rights meetings.
4. To strengthen involvement from civil society from the Global South in particular in global Internet governance and Internet rights debates and to dissolve North-South divides
5. To produce tangible shared civil society outputs  addressing pressing current issues that can be  used in advocacy at important upcoming Internet  governance and Internet rights events.
6. To develop an inclusive and sustainable civil society network for Internet governance and Internet rights issues.

Our proposal is to continue in the same vein. This means that we will not set up any working groups or the like, but that those who would like to pursue a particular issue in more detail together will coordinate amongst themselves and report back to the open list as and when they feel this is appropriate. In this vein, the action-oriented and flexible nature of BB can be retained, by facilitating rather than institutionalising.

By proposing an initiative to the BB list, or by participating in the BB list, a person does not become a member as such, but does state to subscribe to the objectives of BB as listed above. In addition, the person agrees to adhere to the working procedures (see http://bestbits.net/wiki/procedures/) and the following guidance principles:

• be action-oriented
• be willing to compromise
• be realistic (Anja: I quite like having idealistic people around as well!)
• be committed to a plurality of representative voices
• be conservative in what they send, liberal in what they receive
• actively promote the balanced participation of participants from the Global South and North

The emphasis on the action-oriented nature of BB does not mean that discussion is not possible – in fact, it is generally crucial to explore a new issue, find common ground and build consensus. But discussion alone is not the aim of BB. BB meetings in particular will be dedicated to issues where the likelihood of outcomes is great, as sufficient discussion around them has already been had on the open list and/or collective action around them using the BB platform has already been taken in some form, rather than to exploring new issues from scratch.

Governments and private sector can subscribe to the general mailing list. However, as BB is essentially a CS network, where CS subscribers feel an issue needs to be discussed among CS only, this can be done on the already established EC list (so far used for the conversation on enhanced cooperation). Outcomes of such discussions can in due time be reported to the open list. Where a group of BB participants is working on a particular issue and find it helpful to have a separate, closed email list to support their work, this can also be created. BB meetings are open to CS participants only, whether they are in-person or remote participants.

Connections with other relevant networks are maintained through personal connections with individual members/representatives or through participation by individual BB participants in such networks. Where such connections do not exist, an attempt will be made to actively establish them. Networks can sign on to all BB statements and representatives of networks can participate in BB activities. However, networks do not have any special standing in comparison to other participants in the list and the voice of networks will not carry greater weight than that of others. BB is also not tied or constrained in any way by the agenda of other networks.

To facilitate lightweight coordination of the network, a Steering Committee will be established. The tasks of the Steering Committee will include the following:

• practical tasks as listed in the working procedures (eg. take final decision where there is a dispute about whether an initiative is appropriate for the BB platform; shortlist nominees for representation in third party initiatives; etc);
• represent BB in third party initiatives as relevant;
• raise funding as required;
• plan for the yearly meeting, both where substance and practicalities are concerned, the former with input from all participants;
• ensure the website is up to date and ensure the social media presence of the platform, including by appointing non-steering committee members to take care of this, if considered appropriate;
• establish and maintain connections with other platforms as appropriate;
• any tasks required to ensure the overall evolution of the network in line with its objectives, especially the overcoming of the North-South divide.

Expressions of interest in serving on the Steering Committee will be solicited on the mailing list once per year between annual meetings. Based on the expressions of interest received, the existing Steering Committee will propose a suggested new steering committee that satisfies the following criteria:

• At least 1 member from each of the five regions Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North America/Other, with a maximum of eight members.
• At least 40% women.
• Minimum term 1 year, maximum term 3 years, with a 1 year gap before reappointment.
• Open to civil society participants only.

The steering committee’s proposal must be approved by consensus on the mailing list. Objections to the proposal can be raised based on its suspected lack of alignment with the objectives of BB.

Funding will be sought to support the platform and its activities as and when required. This includes funding for the organisation of the annual meeting and to facilitate the participation of participants from the Global South who lack funding. It may also include funding to support other operational tasks, such as the maintenance of the website.

Any BB participant may fundraise to support their own participation in the Best Bits network, or the participation of others. A draft generic Best Bits concept note should form the basis of fundraising approaches where the fundraising is done on behalf of the BB network. The following criteria will be followed when deciding to accept funding on behalf of the BB network:

• Does the funding place participants or objectives at risk?
• Does the funding jeopardize relationships with participants or other networks?
• Does the funding compromise the network’s independence?
• Does the funding relationship influence priorities, policy positions, advocacy efforts, regions of focus or direct action work?

An attempt will be made to establish a fund with varied sources of funding, rather than to be reliant on one funder alone. Where funding is obtained on behalf of the BB platform, the Steering Committee will make certain to communicate in a transparent and accountable fashion to BB CS participants how funds were spent.

Introduction

This note suggests some ideas about how to strengthen the IGF. We’re aware that the conversation about internet governance could cover much broader ground and people may not want to dwell upon the IGF or this aspect of it. But if there is an “IGF plus” element to the conversation these are our ideas.

As well as discussing the ideas it would be useful, if people are interested, in considering how we can take these ideas forward – what is it we can do as civil society to strengthen the IGF and secure greater government (and business?) support for the process. Who could we lobby; how should we promote these ideas; who is the target audience for any statement?

Where next for the IGF

The IGF was a compromise outcome: an IGF non-decision-making Internet forum on the one side, balanced by a proposal for enhanced cooperation (ostensibly among governments although this is debated) on Internet public policy issues the other.

The IGF has come to play a very important role as the major multi stakeholder forum in which internet policy is discussed. It provides a locus for discussion among the diverse stakeholders of the Internet eco-system – from technical governance bodies such as ICANN and IETF on the one hand to treaty bodies such UNESCO, the Human Rights Council, or WIPO, WTO on the other.

At Tunis the remit of the IGF was established to act as a deliberation body for all stakeholders to, inter alia, raise emergent Internet governance challenges and report on progress and solutions to existing governance issues, discuss the best approach to address governance issues and appropriate parties to address those issues, and build voluntary enhanced cooperation groups made up of institutions with mandates to address identified challenges.

Currently the IGF functions as a kind of meeting place for the main players in the internet ecosystem – a place to share and debate ideas in a multistakeholder format – though even in this environment debates are often siloed, in part because of the conflicting meetings and insufficient regional and stakeholder representation

The IGF now has a mandate to be more outcome-oriented from ECOSOC via the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. This note builds on some of the key suggestions in the CSTD report published 16 March 2012 in the hope that it will further strengthen the IGF to give it more relevance, visibility and status – thereby going part way to meeting the desire of some governments for a stronger global policy process without establishing a form of regulation that would stifle development. This report is at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Contributions2009/IGF%20imporvement.pdf

Our view on this is as follows:

As a first step towards strengthening role of the IGF we would suggest small practical steps that would enable the IGF to build credibility through making its outputs relevant and useful. There is very real need for the the discourse and the product of the IGF to have value and relevance for all stakeholders and particularly governments. If this can be achieved we can consider whether the IGF could develop into a body with the standing to issue declarations/recommendations.

The recommendations for increasing the value and relevance of the IGF are three-fold:

1. Clarifying and refining the role and purpose of the Special Representative, the MAG and the secretariat.

There is a need for clearer leadership in the IGF. The appointment of the long-overdue UN SecGen special representative (SR) who could speak to IGF concerns and act as the visible face of the IGF is essential. The SR would be the Chair of the IGF and would produce a Chair’s statement at the end of each event after consultation with the (reformed) MAG.

Currently the MAG continues to function as it did at the first IGF. An empowered MAG must have a role that is greater than event organisation/management, which is and should be the role of the secretariat. The MAG and the SR have to work hand-in-hand to ensure a balanced division of labour and representation. The functioning and decision-making of the MAG can no longer be held up by single country representatives. A mechanism should be agreed so that final decisions are not “managed” by the SR or others.

Concrete steps to strengthen the role and purpose of the MAG could include the following:

1. MAG members to form IGF working groups on key issues of importance to the future of the IGF including: 1) the key issue of funding and budget (working with the IGF secretariat, UNDESA and other relevant parties), and, 2) communications/outreach (with a focus on how to communicate the outputs of the IGF and how to encourage participation in the IGF); additional WGs should be formed as the need arises
2. MAG members should adopt the role of Internet Governance Forum Focal Points – in other words acting as regional and/or national and stakeholder representatives and points of contact for those who are seeking to participate in the IGF

The secretariat needs additional funding to secure the resources to ensure the continuity and coherency of the day to day management of the IGF.

2. Building credibility and weight through relevant outputs, refining the workshops and other sessions

If the IGF is to have weight and standing in the international Internet governance space for all stakeholders then advocates, policy makers and others will want to know the issues under discussions are relevant, the experts brought knowledge and diversity of views, the discussion was valuable and rewarding, and that the challenge/issue/concern was addressed and that the proposed solutions were practical and credible. Attendees at the IGF should be able to return to their country with some solutions that they can possibly use/implement.

The following outline key ideas that are elaborated on later in the text

• The subject/focus of the IGFs must be relevant to all parties;
• The workshops and panels, etc. must be focused on addressing real concerns, challenges or “wicked” problems and could include designated workshops for developing non-binding suggestions to address certain Internet governance issues. A particular focus should be on addressing issues of practical consequence and of importance to specific stakeholders.
• The workshop outputs must be structured so that “recommendations” can be derived from the findings – “this was the challenge – and this is how the participants suggested or recommended it be addressed”;
• The format of the workshop reports need to be standardized so that it is easy to see what those “recommendations” are (and how they were arrived at).

Addressing policy challenges:

The practical relevance of the IGF needs to be reassessed and mechanisms put in place to ensure that the output of the IGF is relevant and useful to advocates, policy makers and others. The main focus of the IGF should be address policy challenges/problems/issues in multi-stakeholder deliberative processes that result in clear and comprehensive but succinct outputs that note the divergences and convergences of opinion on a given issue and, if possible, makes recommendations from the participants in those processes as to how the issue could be addressed. This problem/solution approach would allow for credible and useful outputs.

This would require the following changes: workshops subjects should clearly be framed in terms of addressing a specific policy/technical/other issues or concerns; an output form/template needs to be developed that allows for and reflects the opinions of the participants, their points of agreement and disagreement and provides an opportunity for a set of recommendations to be articulated. This approach would allow for a better reflection of the discourse and an output oriented report that would point to ways forward. Such reports should be short and concise (preferably no more than one page).

Another approach to strengthen the deliberative approach of the IGF would be to identify specific and or cross-cutting issues that require further work that could be forwarded to appropriate fora or organizations. One requirement of the workshops might be that they identify where, whether nationally or internationally, their particular issue could be further worked on. This would satisfy certain elements of the IGF’s mandate.

The IGF should also become part of an on-going policy research agenda on emerging issues and scoping of the same agenda for the wider policy community. Linked to this the IGF through its workshops and other approaches could examine the products of research and explore evidence-based policy options. This would require an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to define research needs and consider/debate research output.

With institutional capacity (and in particular a strengthened secretariat) the IGF could produce an annual report – a user-friendly, valuable report of the findings/outputs of the global IGFs. This would not be a compilation of reports, etc., but rather a substantive summary that would highlight the recommendations and findings from the IGF. Either a member of the secretariat or an outside resource would have to be secured for this important product/output. If resources permit it would be invaluable to have a report that does the same for the outputs of regional and national IGFs.

3. Building linkages between national, regional and global IGFs

There has been a proliferation of national and regional IGFs, yet apart from the reporting in session at the global IGF there are no linkages between the work and findings of the national and regional IGFs and the global IGF. There needs to be a greater recognition of the work that is accomplished at the national IGFs, and the regional and global IGFs should take the findings of these national IGFs into account in as they build their own programmes and focus. Policy issues that are raised by national IGFs should feed into the appropriate regional IGFs and, in turn, feed into the global IGF. Part of the process for determining the issue(s) focus of the global IGF should be based upon the issues that are important at national and regional levels.

The above is an overdue recognition of the important role that national and regional IGFs play in furthering discussion of Internet policy, capacity building and other elements that are essential to the Internet’s evolution and success around the globe.

In summary…

We have identified these 3 areas for improvement for the IGF – undoubtedly there are many more. We believe that if we can build the incremental value-add and relevance of the IGF for all stakeholders – in practical and useful ways – then we will see a measurable increase in the visibility and relevance of the IGF that will in turn lead to greater standing in Internet policy matters.

The original Microsoft Word version of this document is attached.