Part 3- WSIS CSB Cape Town Meetings Lunch (Breakwater lodge) - good informal discussions, and informal caucusing. Msr. Samesekou, thanks for the invitation. He was able to stay during lunch, and to have informal conversations. We have to combat rumors. We don'w want people to be able to able to piont fingers, and say that they are not represented. We must say what we think, and do what we say. If there are misunderstandings. Dialoge can resolve all (because I know that we are not dealing with Imbeciles). let us return to partnerships. it doesn't mean egalitarianism. the chance that we have is that this summit will lead us to a new way of global goverance. It's important that each organization, and that each person plays its role. That's very important in the second phase of process. if each person plays their role - will lead us to be able to live together. To quote president Lula of Brazil, as mentioned at the world social forum "a better world is possible" I cannot kiss you all, but thank you very much. - Our exchange this morning was very important, and you know that in the UN you only have x minutes to speak. We had a nice sharing of points of view, but this afternoon we have 5 points to cover this afternoon. Only 2hr left, Viola will have a few words. - this afternoon we have a lot to cover, and we'll have to follow the rules very strick. I'll be your timekeeper, with no more than 3 minutes. this is done as we need to really advance and cover all the points Intervention - please give us a "warning" when we are running out of time. Thank you for the intervention of the indegenous peoples. And now we have the issue of Emir, and the question is how will we handle it. Intervention - Wolfgang - Everyone agrees that something should be done. He recommends a small working group of volunteers, who could draft something and . Robert - mentions an adhoc urgent working group be established to consider the facts and take appropiate action nenna - recommends that the WGWM take up the issue of urgent actions and how to consider hwo to react when issues occur with cs collegues. There is a discussion about how the WGWM will take up this issuue of Emir, it is clear that the WGWM will only deal with the "principle" of how to deal with/react to these kinds of issues. The specific case, will be dealt with by a little "working group" of the CSB. sci/tech: Renate - raising an intervention regarding Agenda Item 6. What will we do with the structure and functioning of the CSB. There has been a lot of discussion on the Plenary list, that Wolfgang - In the "familily structure" - you had institutions - legal structures; for examples in the media family, you have representatives of the formal media institutions. for the working groups, caucueses, etc., you had individuals; who discuss substance. - keep the distiction between content and procedural matters. - csb should in no means become the government of the cs Jeanette Hoffman (wsis Internet Governance WG): Believes that eeryone believes that the CSB should be restricted on administrative problems. The WSIS CS WGIG needs to have the "overlap" strengthened because, this summer, she needed someone on the CSB, and to communicate with the CSB. She couldn't even communicate with the CSB, because posting rights are limited to only the members. Now they are finally taking a speakers list (and it is a long one). Robert - very practical suggestions. What is needed, is that there be more documentation. Who the CSB members are, and how to contact them. He had a website where he was trying to do this (in his own humble way). Phase I, there as content and themes, and their role. Perhaps we should have members of the CS WGIG, and the CS WGF (on finance) and invite them to sit on the CSB, because of the need to interface with the CSB in the second phase of the wsis. We need to have other mechamisms so that we don't miss opportunities. The website and contact information should be updated. Tracey - I think that there is an obvious interaction between content and the CSB. This is classic civil society wandering around the issue. In phase one, new organizations emerged (so, it is not a case of asking them to join us; but they must be a part of use). Magaly - in Spanish (translated by Rogert) - I will follow tracey's comments. Something that comes to mind is how civil society has organized itself aroudn the WSIS, and it has in some ways limited our ways to act. When we are very much concentrating on labels (boxes). So tere are pacticular lables, for example, the label of family, particulary in relationship to the existing work that has been done within the UN. Something that I think is very important, is the flexibility and the creativity about how we name things, both in the CSB, and in civil society as a whole. We don't want them to be misconsructed as something else. - comment, the translator is stopping the speak in mid-thought; confusing her - smile. It is up to the CSB so that the wording is not hijacked, and not leading us into confusion. We had a really great opportunity make steps forward to have intergovernmental bureau meetings (interjection from the translator - Viola - this was actually established in prepcom 2). So our labels cannot be limted of our action. Benjamin: - differs with tracey and thinks that the bureau should not be changed in any way, nor increased in size. - differs with robert - what there needs to be able to decide on urgent matters (such as funding, etc) . Thinks that bureau decisons shoudl only take place at physcial meetings only. - agrees with Janette that bureau members should be aware of what groups are doing, but should not reflect their views (very emphatic about this). Derrick - The issue here is that, at the moment, there is not a "complete" overlap between the "content" issues being "represented" on the CSB, and those from the working groups, caucuses, and other CS structures. At the moment, there is an overlap, but not a complete overlap. This is fundamentally unfair and unrepresentative. Either, there should be a "complete/perfect" overlap, or no focus on overlap; but at the moment, it is structurally inequitable (Jeanette's case, is only one example; thought a very important one). Nenna: - all those in the bureau serve in volunteer capacity. [sudden surprise - Francis Muget brings Markus Kummer to room] Markus Kummer - Chair of the Executive Secreatair of the UN WGIG just came in (to much aplause). Olivier - introduces Markus Kummer, as a "surprise/present" for us, MK is one of the landmarks of negotiations, when he chaired the negotiations on Internet Governance, during the first phase of WSIS. Kummer: - thanks olivier for introduction. - where are we now, what are we doint (in the WGIG) Insert your actions into the work of the working group. Not an isolated phenomenon. Part of a broad-based process. Ever since the decision was taken at the summit, many bodies have started looking into the mandate of the group. Many actors, adn organizations are involved in WGIG, and this is a very good thing. WGIG will not be operating in a vaacuum, but will be soliciting input and working in a very open and inclusive manner. This was clarified at the first meeting of the WGIG (three members of the WGIG are here present). Many others were here in Cape Town at the ICANN meetings. The composition, represents to a very large extent, the very broad-based mandate. It reflects a very multi-stakeholder approach; and it also reflects a regional balance. We want to also compliment civil society, and was engaged in a very constructive way (and one of the architechts Jeanatte and Adam). It was a very open and constructive dialoge, that we engaged in dduring the process. they helped us to understand a very open and consultative processes, and what this should interaction should look like. jeanatte, should remember from hamammet, when she mentioned what the cs belived should be the character of the WGIG. It closelfy resembled his own position, even though he has taken much heat from goverments. Most actors seem to recognize themselves in the composition of the Working Group. good that middle ground has been found. there has been first meeting of WGIG. Had an open ended consultations for all - 23 of oct? (sept?). established roadmap, scope & priorities. believes that by and large, they have achvied its objectives. developped good chemistry among members of the group. a good workign relationship. doesn't mean there is agreement - but we can work together and work towards our agenda. results from 1st meeting - strong stress on developmental agenda. Agreeded that governance needs to be seen in broad context of ICT4D and how to achieve the MDGs. clearly there is a great priority of developing countries in the mechanisms of intnergovernance, an dhuge need to capacity development in internet governance mechanisms. 1st mtg agreeded on draft outline of structure of report and issues to cover. Good to develop this framework for the documents that will be produced. not a revolutionary document; starts with an introduction, moves ahead). (outlime of document on WGIG website) realized that these there are working definitions - nothing definate of what internet is, or what internet governance is. They felt that it was important/useful to have section of evolution of internet to present day. current situation (who are the actors). The first few chapters, are mostly descriptive. - inventory of policy areas under dsicussion (part of the core mandate of the group) - look @ future development and scenrios. how the internet would look like in 5 years, and how the governance will look like. Ie. IPv6. We won't give definitive answers, but look at scenarios - as it may not be valid in 5 yrs. What we come up with - will not be adecuate or appriopiate, not look for adhoc soltions - but how to deal with problems as they arise. As you remember from Geneva, there were those who said th at nothing needs to be "changed" and those that said "everything needs to be changed." - proposals for action as appropiate. there seems to no doubt that members of the group wiull come up with proposals The report will have formal arrangements as a sub-chapter, informatl agrangements as a sub-chapter. Teh working group may not be able to deal with everything, but may be able to send concrete recommendations to government. The final chapter will be on capacity building which should not be underestimated (NB: from Derrick; however, this has to be real capacity building, because it is constantly referred to as an issue; but very little effort actually gets focused on it. Recall the ITU expert meeting on IG, were during the capacity building panels, many of the key folks were out of the room, having coffee and chatting in the hallway). the WSIS will likely come up with usefull proposals as it related to capacity building. 4 categories: 1. equitiable distr of resources 2. access for all 3. stable and secure fucntioning of internet 4. multilingualism 5. Content 6. Other issues for consideration these are the very noble goals which have been negotiated categories that have come up with. some are horitizonal and cross cutting. we have broad categories that give is a strong starting point. While key Internet scholars may not agree with these categories, but no one really argues that these are not important. next steps: - identified certain issues. from questionnaire we sent out. (paper presented by vica chairman of UN ict TF). A long list of issues - this was cleaned up a bit, It will be on the website, if it is not there, it will certainly be there next week. We asked for members to make comments on how we might update the methodology, terminology, etc., there is alwyas room for corrections and additionas, based on feedback. the next phase of th work is a member driven process. botton up. members of the working group will be asked to devleop issue papers on the different issues. they are to indicate on what issues thay aerw willing to prepare papers or to comment on some. if some issues do not receive much attention from the members, they will be seen as not very important (NB: Derrick Note: this means that we have to make sure that the issues that are important to CS are being conveyed effectively to the CS members of the WGIG, and that we ensure that they have the "epistemic resources" necessary to make an impact). pritoriy issues will be identified when we see the issues around which they will coalesce. We will post everything on our website. important element - is that each of the issues should be measuered against the issues mentioned in the declaration. among these principles, have identified that: ? , should be transparent and democratic, and that international internet issues should be discussed in coordinated manner. tentative deadline - papers written, and we know that we are in a diffficult timeframe, because we are at the end of the year, and the end of the year activities. ready for 20 jan. posted and will ask for reactions (comment). Spent some time on working methods - no definate methodology, necesity to adapt our methods to use modern icts and the internet. Recognize that CS is perhaps more advanced in these methods than governments. Usefullness of web casts, transcriptions, and placing content online. Importance - of opness and inclusivess. Especially governments that are not members, to see and be able to follow what is going on. We need to adapt our working methods to the new realities of the Internet, and that we can not talk about Internet Governance without using the Internet. NB: Derrick Note - however, Kummer should note, that ICANN is still critized for not being sufficiently open and inclusive, and that ICANN announced during this meeting, that they will be exploaring additional mechanisms for participating. the chairman believes strctly that the group will adhear to the so-called Chathenham Rules - meaning that they will not be quoted under any situation; i.e., they can put whateer ideas that they want on the table, and will feel comfortable that they will not be quoted. Open and inclusive should not be limited to geographical presence. We have to show that we can use technologies to be as open and inclusive as possible. Nitin Desai, the c hairmain of the WGIG, was very actively in volved in the summits of the 90s, and has argued that it has allowed CS to become more importnat. worked with APC and others to get more involvved. Vitoriola Bertola, Karen Banks, Adam Peake, and Janeatte, all working on developing the new working methods. He was fortunate to particpate in a meetingn on Internet Governance at Syracuse University. He found the meeting personally, very exhilirating, and that it showed the incredible potential of involving diverse participants in a combination of a physical meeting, with people being both physical and remote. He noted, that he was able to give his Presentation from his home in Geneva, and that there were participants as diverse as Cape Town, (Derrick addition) Korea, Geneva, Denmark, Senegal, Veneuezuala, et al. About twenty total diverse participants. Derrick was very helpful in both training him - which he sees as a critical issue - but also to ensure that the facilitating of the process went without many hitches. He hopes that one way or another, we will be able to bring Derrick into the process. Not enough to identify the tools, but to ensure that people can use the tools, and are coached, facilitated, and trained. one proposal - to have consultation, back 2 back to the prepcom. 2 day open ended meeting. 4 sessions (am/pm/am/pm). Will be along 4 mayor categories. main agenda will be the ID of important public policies and priorities. need to prepare preliminary report to the prepcom. The feb is about interaction. After Feb meeting, will carry on online interacion. 2 more meetings (mid april, mid june) for final drafting. Proposal by Brazil to hold meeting in April , also invitation by Cairo in May (does not fit @ calendar of working group). brazilian invitation - still being considered. As next icann meeting in Argentina. perhaps thinking of having wgig meeting back to back meeting after ICANN mtg (especially because the ICANN folks are so knowleddgeble). - meeting UNECA in Accra, Ghana (end of jan 2005) - May -june - meetings are extermely impot to allow for regional work and input, so that regions will come up with different priopirites and what their necesities are. The deadline is fixed, (by summit nov 2005) - I thought that it was earlier? I think that I've been too long, am willing to answer questions. Olivier. - In order to reflect, our huge interest in internet governance, there are many questions that we would like to ask. Derrick's Questions 1. Capacity building more than a concept 2. ICANN Needs to also have more mechanisms for remote and distributed participation. 3. How to link knowledge or epistemic resources to the members of the working group. - cpacity building has come up as question. Soemthing that was quite evident that people went outside when panel occured Robert - Good to hear that the WGIG is also going through its on understandding and evolution of working methods. So, as a result, perhaps the structure that evolves could also be shared so that we all have a better sense of what practices and structures are possible. not only will report on internet governance be usefull, but also processes and working methods are developped. YJ - The CS structures of internet governance - went throught a process of trying to develop its own name. So the question is how will the WGIG get its work done. Kummer - The working group is not going to focus just on ICANN issues. So there will be a much broader perspective on the kinds of issues that the WGIG deals with. We have clearly agreed to look at it from every angle possible. Robert's question on the working methods, is a great one, and he hopes that there is a very fruitful dialoge and echange of ideas between civil society and the WGIG, and We hope to see the WGIG as a "pioneering" working group within the UN Context, and hopefully in the futuere, thereas other issues emrge, the WGIG can serve as a focus of developing models, Responding to Derrick's questions. Regarding capacity building, in some ways, it depends on "who is in the room." For examaple, if there are regulators in the room, they may not be as interested in "human capacity building." But we have to do whatever is necessary, to ensure that these issues do not fall off of the table. Regarding ICANN, indeed, they are not doing everything that they could (and they recognize that), but compared to most governments and intergovernmental organizations), they are far ahead. Fianlly, regarding the knowledge resources. Yes, we don't want to reinvent the wheel. There is much that has already been done, said, written, understood in this field. We must ensure that there is room for improvement. Identify measures to provide knowledge and resources. looking forward to all the input we can get. time is short. we dont' want to reinvent the wheel - much of the work will be sifting through existing material, evaluating it, and see how we can prepare it for decion making by political leaders. CS is in a position to contribute alot. WGIG, also the govt memebrs are ready to listen to the members. have a positive summing up of the meeting. Fruitfull meeting, all where listen to each other. Govts where willing to listen to non governmental input. Optimistinc that can't solve all the problems, but will be able to make usefull steps forward. Izumi: - thanks Kummer that cs nominees were accepted, and that cs almost makes up 1/4 of WGIG - challenge is to establish effective dialogue of CS inside and outside the WGIS. to have a fruitfull dialogue at times - need to have a certain extent on confidentiality; meaning that those that are not members of the WGIG, should ensure that they respect the rights and perspectives of those on the WGIG, that may not feel comfortable in a completely "on the record discussion" NB: Note from Derrick - this is especially related to comments from Jovan's organization, that we raised at our seminar during the Geneva Summit - namely that there are phases in diplomatic negotations; and at somem points duringn that process. . It make a difference, especially for governmental manners - so that they can formulate their thoughts in the process. Olivier excused himself. Nnenna - most people are working voluntarily. People in Africa can't get on line. We need greater access to information here. We need to know where to get reports so we can translate them into understandable languages - not UN languages. Question - how do the families understand the second phase? Everyone wants to know this. It would help to focus works. Viola - reports still need to be sent in, then they will be put on the web. (then Nnenna can translate them). Mustafa - In Hammermet there were questions that beg for answers: 1. do we have a secretariat or do we rely on the Tunisian division to supply secretarial support? 2. do we mainatin CSB structure or modify? 3. do we rotate chair? Need clear decisions so the Tunisian Secretariat can proceed on that basis. Renate will explain the possibilities. The process is evolving. We are adopting the "Chattenham Rules" that don't attribute discussion content - thus freeing people to discuss. Need to have a clear idea of the groups we have in front of us now. They have changed, as things do. This enables logistical support and planning for meetings, which in turn enables civil society to work. Get Information - from renate about what said about a wsis csb secretarit being funded and/or run inside congo? She said she wants to work with the Tunisian Secretariat who have appointed CS liaison people, and with the International Volunteers & NGLS. If we need further caucus's they must be within existing families. Joseph, as far as representation is concerned, members of the burear can be an organization or invididual. As francis mentioned, a university will not allow anyone to speak on its behalf. As a member of a local council, I "can" speak on behalf of them. YJ - Currently, there are seven members of the Internet Governance caucus who are represented on the CSB. But there are sensitivities as a whole Civil society can perhaps organize a workshop on internet governance at prepcom 2. This could be an opportunity for CS to help spread the word about what is going on with the WGIG and IG in general. Ann Kristine: I would not like to see what happend in Tunis, when content and themes group prepared a statement, and we had no idea about what it was going to say. We had a plenary meeting in the morning, and it could have been explored with us. She is then going through several documents; and comments. So, she is now raising a comment about observers. xxx Document says that "observers could attend the meeting, but could only participate if the chair allocated time on the agenda for observers." The second comment, is about the comment that says, "the bureau is open to observers, but those who speak should have a panel, and could do so through the focal point who is there. This was a task for one of the four sub-groups. What are the four sub-groups (and I am assuming that these emerged out of pc1 tunis)? (yes) what are the four sub-groups? I dn't have the documents (was It is difficult to be strictly proceddural, because we are all political. Have we asked ourselves, how the governmental bureau thinks about our bureau, and what do they think about our bureau. Ramin - just a response to some of the discussion, many of these comments are in line with what the WGWM will be doing. reaction : supports with tracey, suggestion that need a logical review. that will also require some subtractions recommendations (but only recommendations, because there has been no discussion on this yet): - secretrait - pre-preocom 2 cs meeting - only those families that deliver a report will stay in csb (the others are dormant) - I'll give a procedural suggestion. Start thinking about an outcome of this meeting for the entire civil society. discussions about The comment, this recommendation of this tripartite secretariat (CONGO, ICVS, NGLIS, and the executive secreatarit) - has already been happening in the lead up to Hammamet. This would illustrate the wiledest dreams of mr. geiger to see civil society taking this lead on its processes and hosting this secretariat. Renate: bureau needs to evolve. those who sits on bureau - needs a mandate, so that we support them. give them political and other support. We should remember that the CSB started at a certain point in history, but now we need to understand how the CSB is evolving (like the UN WGIG is evolving). Magaly - again, in Spanish (thanks for helping me Viola). In respect to the CSB. I have particularly issues in respect to the mandate of the CSB, and woudl like those put on the table. For example, thanks for Rogef and Ramin regarding the slightly different perspectives of their organizations. and i have to say that as a personal experience, from a cs person; that had a fellowship I had to communicate directly with geiger, not with the cs people. The role of the executive secreatariat, is that it should be working in multiple languages. Also, we are talking about the various organizations, and how they are making contributions, but how can we be talking about how these organizations will be making a role without first understanding what the role of the CSB is. It is not possible to establish the secretariat, without first having a clear mandate. Viola - these do seem to be some very valid points. We have talked about these in the past, but we perhaps need to restate, how we work, what we do, and so on. NB: Derrick Question/comment - we need to have a discussion about the secreatariat, because it should not just be "asserted" that it will at those organizations. That will not give it the legitimacy that it needs. Robert's Intervention - Has comments that have been refered to him, and his own list. 1. from Joseph - develop a timeline of the bureau and the acccomplishments that he has made. 2. People should make committments, and then keep the committments that they have made. In the introduction by Oliver it was stated that had helped keep the information and discussions alive earlier in the year. However, the role of maintining information current was done in an informal capacity. Certain caucuses unfamiliar with the CSB, didn't know - and certain # of personal attacks where made. Some of the comments related to "mandate" where in fact correct - as such, it is key and very important that resonsibilites be assigned and confirmed by bureau. Otherwise, nothing will be done. We can't talk about "anything" until we get that mandate right. We have the experience of the people from the IG caucus that we should take advantage of. 3. I have been a little shocked that a secretariat was "set up" and that job postings were set up, etc., and the CSB did not really know about that. 4. Transparency is very important. We need to take photos of everyone, so that we have photos of everyone, what are their government postings (past, prevous, and future). 5. I will not accept the idea of a rotating chair. 6. Someone should be the focal point for plenary questions. Tried to keep this under five minutes. Thansk robert. Robert: following up on Joseph's comment - on what have we done both @ summit and inter-summit period * Mandate / Terms of Reference of Bureau while fine that the ES have a CS section. it should be seen as separate and independent. We have to not be naive in regards to capture, as happened in PC1 / Tunis * Transparency - Congo funding? CV's sent for positions - this needs to be much more open. - so we have focal points. and from there, what? - existing working groups? - do not agree with rotating chair. - proposals: * list of needs: + fund raising + Documentation - welcome kit - compilation of documents - who can speak on behalf + Communications - Bureau Member(s). List, website, and other tools. + outreach + Facilitation / information flow + liason with Geneva + Liason with Un Organizations + liason with plenary? + Working methods ? Recommendations from this meeting Meeting is broken up for awhile with a focus on Birds/roosters, etc. - smile cock-a-doodle -do - funny Francis . We have a problem, there are some groups that are easy to interface with teh CSB, and others are more difficult. We need to have some clear mechanisms for the funding of the bureau. I think that there is the need for enlargement for some family. for example, we need to have some European family. For exampl,e we need to formally interact with the EU, and we had one conversation witih them. Considering the relationship between the groups, considering that the WGWM is only going to focus on When you are dealing with intergroup relationships, as groups (eg IG), I belive that the CSB might want to have a regulatory mandate, to faciliate problems between the groups (not within the groups). There are some civil society speakers that have political problems, but I can't go into that now. I think that we should not too much focus on representativity, because that is too much competition with states who have an exclusive mandate of representative. We should have just the idea; whicih helps to focus on our identity. Actually I rewrote what I said earlier - how can I insert it, in doc 2 I think...But if you changed doc, 2, I should probably get a copy from you. spreading the message is import. news and outreach needs to be done. in regards to CSB - it was a divsion of CSB in phase 1. If there a difference now, how are things done? Moncef: - why a dicion. @ phase I, it must be said. I had said they had done a great role. Sammaseku said earlier, that civil scoiety itself should take charge. - idea of CSB came from governments, as they needed an organization and focal point ot deal and talk to - phase II there is a new well, to give them an evolving structure. - news staff memebers will come @ CS that speak arabic and spanish So to conclude for the new stucture, it is not intended to conflat the structures from the past. It is incomprable from what teh resouces have had in the past; this is why we are open to exploring these options with CONGO, ICVS, NGLIS, this collaboration means that we have already exceed on many things. I would fully support the proposal to give the secretariat the possibilities to do this. And I can tell you from a recent meeting from the Tunisians, it is ncesarry to have a new mission from the ES. Ramin is drawing something - sometimmes it helps to visualize. Roberts Comments - The diagrams that list the "three" organizations, would come under immediate criticism, that who chose those orgaqnizations, The CS secretariat, should be separate from the ES. A point of mine. Renate: Congo has for some time lacked capacity to respond to the requests related to WSIS it recieves. It has long wanted to have a portfolio within it that does support the process. It is anticipated the following can be overcome: Lack of information Lack of point person Language issues At this point there are no additional resources but intent. Robert pointed out that there is already a fast response group in the CSB, and going on this organisation, it is working ok. Titi: - 3 levels. question of transparency will be asked. How did organizations got to be on bureau, what is bureau about - though had lot of conversations today: what is this bureau doing? we haven't defined the fundamentional question of what we are doing. we should not forget that not just us we have to answer to - but to all of cs. - If we are about procedures, why did we speed two hours listening to kumar - if that's content, what is it doing at our meeting. did we loose 2 hrs. Tracey: - we need a facilitated session - If we don't come out of this process with some conclusions, we will show that we are in fact, incompotent, and unable to handle our own responsibilities (paraphrase). Izumi: Surprised about the surprise of titi, because internet government is one of the two most important issues. Francis Robert: The world doesn't have to end by today. Just like the WGIG has to work over the next several months, so do we. Derrick: 1. 1 year from Geneva WSIS - still working the same way 2. This meeting highlights many of my previous comments, about better ways to use the "FTF time" much of what we have done today could have been done using webconferencing tools; so that we could have better maximized this extremely valuable FTF time. I have never advocaced "not meeting" ftf, but to use these tools to ensure that this very valuable time is used more effeciently. Indegenous People Nnenna You have to take these decisions to the constituency; and answer their questions. Not just to ask them questions. ====