Hyderabad IGF 2008 Meeting - Day 1 - Reaching the Next Billion
Wednesday, 3 December 2008, 0930 - 11:00am, Room 3 (Workshop Hall 5)
Workshop 22: Lessons Learned from the Engagement and Facilitation of Internet Users into Policy Development and Processes within ICANN via the ICANN Board's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC).
Panellists
· Global (ALAC) & Panel Moderator - Cheryl Langdon-Orr, APRALO elected representative to the ALAC and current Chair of the ICANN ALAC 2007-2009.
· AFRALO ‐ Hawa Daikite , AFRALO elected representative to the ALAC, from Bombo Mali, who operates an ISP DataTech in Mali, giving a presentation prepared by Fatimata Seye Sylla, from Dakar Senegal, a NomCom appointee to AFRALO and member of the ALAC Executive Committee, affiliated with Bokk Jang an NGO.
· APRALO‐ Dr. V.C. Vivekanandan, APRALO elected representative to the ALAC, HRD IP Chair Professor & Head‐ Centre for IP Law studies; Director‐NALSAR Proximate Education, University of Law Hyderabad.
· APRALO‐ Mr. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, President at ISOC India Chennai, a recently accredited ICANN At-Large Structure (ALS) & CEO at Turiya.
Firstly we reviewed the background and structure of the ALACóRALOóALS model that is currently acting as a primary voice of the Internet User in the policy development of ICANN.
Specifically that:-
The At‐Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the specific activities of the Internet. Underpinning the ALAC is a network of self-organizing, self‐ supporting At‐Large Structures throughout the world involving individual Internet users at the local or issue Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At‐Large"community).
It was established as an Interim ALAC on 31st October 2002 and became established in its current form on June 29th 2007; currently the ALAC is under its first independent review http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/
ICANN relies on the ALAC and the broader At‐Large community including the Regional At‐Large Structures (RALO’ s) and At-Large Organisations (ALS’s) to involve and represent into ICANN policy development, a broad set of individual Internet user interests, gathered locally from their grass roots membership and local activities and resources.
The At‐Large Structures (ALS’s) are either existing organizations such as NFP’s, consumer interest groups (often focussed on telecommunications and communications access matters), ISOC Chapters, or newly formed for this purpose.
Currently more than 116 group ALS’s have been accredited and we are experiencing a ‘growth phase ‘at the moment which will see more than 120 end accredited before years and possibly another 5 before March, 2009, with a view of a one per country minimum as short term planning, in several regions, including Asia Pacific. See http://www.atlarge.icann.org/
ALS’s organize into five Regional At‐Large Organizations (RALO’s) one in each Large Structures (RALO’s) and At‐Large Geographic ICANN region – Africa, Asia‐Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North America. The RALO’s manage outreach and public involvement and are the main forum and coordination point in each region for public input to ICANN.
The Portal for the Grassroots At‐Large activities within the ICANN Multi‐stakeholder model the ALAC and links to our Regional Micro‐sites was looked at and discussed as a useful tool :- http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ The Working Group Model and collaborative Wiki spaces and mailing lists we used were discussed and the limitations of time taken for information turn around in such a (often criticised) complex layered model was explored but the benefits that this model allows for both better and more effective involvement from emerging and developing economies and regions and specifically those who do not have either high quality and cost effective access to Internet facilities and services at this time and who are NOT native speakers and users of the English language, with its ability to “Think globally and Act (in this case discuss and be involved with ICANN Policy Development issues etc.,) Locally” as well as this models ability to ensure equitable access to and the sharing of opportunities and resources; at this point outweigh the issues raised by the layered complexity though it is recognised that once well facilitated interaction and activity is established amongst the ALS’s and when a true Global Network of them exists a modified or more streamline model could and should be explored;
This led to an exploration of the engagement of true and representative diversity (encompassing not just accessibility and enabling tools and mechanisms but also gender, cultural, and language diversity in the global context of a multi-stakeholder input model of Internet Governance. Specifically looked at then was the experiences of At-Large Structures (ALS’s) and the (RALO’s) through the direct experiences of Asia –Pacific Region and Africa, by the Panellists presentations. The Africa/AFRALO presentation (done paragraph by paragraph in French and English to highlight the importance of translation and interpretation requirements as a facilitation tool, further focussed on why as end users of the Internet Africa must participate in the IGF and specifically what lessons have been learnt from the ALAC experience and identified both what is being well done and what needs further work. Much of which is reflective of the experience of all Regions bust particularly those in the developing and emerging economies and those who are not predominantly single language users such as North America.
What is being well done?
· Networking, recruitment of ALS (AFRALO well represented among the 5 regions, 20+ %)
· Information sharing including provision of translation during meetings
· Capacity building for ALS representatives: information/training on ongoing internet issues
What needs to be done?
· Promote Capacity building on internet related issues at the local level
· Recommend the inclusion of internet governance in official training programs in conjunction with GAC
· Support the organization of IGF at local level for better participation of the end users
· Involve the end users (ALS) in the preparation and organization of the IGF
· Promote the creation of working groups per IGF theme for better participation
· Participate in the IGF evaluation to measure the impact of African engagement
Audience questions and discussion at this point of the proceedings was focused on the also identified advantages, that engagement at the regional and local level with these identified stakeholders and interested parties {the ALS’s} some regional and in country Internet and Domain Name Industry players, Regulators and broader communications service providers experienced by also engaging with locally on matters of Internet Governance and Internet Industry, Communications and Domain Name Industry matters as well as more generally for consumer (or user) input into discussions with more general commercial and business groups. For examples many ALS’s have either historically had or are developing (or exploring how to develop) a key stakeholder role in local consumer protection, and industry regulation (and/or self regulation) processes, some already holding a Government Consumer Advisory roles, resulting in enhanced cohesiveness and co-operation between all parties and greater confidence in outcomes.
It was then discussed and agreed on, that in this session at least , was that the assumption that the ALAC as part of the ICANN Multi-stakeholder model can be defined as a ‘Transnational Civil Society Network’; and is therefore ‘A non‐state actor in the stakeholder model of governance within ICANN’, was valid.
The session then looked at specific ‘lessons learnt and what still needs to be done', at a time when a formal and independent review of the ALAC is nearing completion exploring what has so far been identified by external and independent analysts; Firstly by looking at what is being said about Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance Models introduce by a review of key points from a recent PhD thesis by Jeremy Malcolm ‘The Internet and Governance Designing a Governance Network Internet Governance Reform’ outlines some ideal criteria for a governance network for the Internet:‐
• An open and transparent forum
– Of multi‐stakeholder composition
– Engaging in democratic deliberation
– Led by a multi‐stakeholder executive body
– Representatives chosen by participatory means
– Ratifies the forum’s decisions by consensus between groups
All of which in the opinion of the session attendees and panellists is being met by the current ICANN – ALAC model and summed up in principal by Grace Ayres’s discussion paper ‘ICANN’s Multi‐Stakeholder Model’ found at http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/icann‐multi‐stakeholdermodel14apr08model‐14apr08.pdf observes that “…in order to stay vital vis‐à‐vis the ever‐evolving Internet, ICANN must always be cognizant of the larger Internet community, particularly of those not yet engaged in the policy development process. In remaining vigilant of the effectiveness and value of its model, ICANN keeps apace of expectations and continues to attract new stakeholders. And every time ICANN responds to the input of its stakeholders, or to other environmental influences, and it undergoes a thoughtful, deliberative, and evaluative process that causes it to adapt, it stays relevant. This kind of evolution is illustrative of an organization that is vital and self‐possessed, that views itself as an entity that is inextricably linked to a greater environment, which it recognizes and accepts as being fluid and mutable.”
Grace goes on to say “…Out of the last nine years the ICANN community has gained also wisdom, shaped by a shared history of successful management, endured difficulties, tested principles and tried relationships, all of which have contributed to the development of a policy development paradigm that is extraordinary in its appropriate complexity and efficiency, even if it will always be ever so incomplete. That the ICANN community reaches for it in the face of anticipated difficulty is a testament to the model’s success and to the stakeholders’ confidence in their process—a process they themselves refined by the sweat of their brows. It demonstrates also their comfort with conflict, for instead of backing away or sidestepping around expected disagreement, they say, let’s talk about it. This is the transformative power of groups. After all, today’s Internet has 1.2 billion users. And its explosive growth will undeniably continue. But it will be in the hands of the stakeholders’ ever‐growing numbers that the Internet will boldly go where it has not gone before.” (page 4)
Finally, we aimed and believe we succeeded in having informative engaging and interactive workshop; Audience participation was in the form of open Q& A at the close of each presentation with an opportunity for questions and discussion with the full panel at the close of the session, and discussions and conversations on the matters raised passed the most important measure of “going on over tea and coffee breaks later” There were technical difficulties with audio visual equipment and set up at the beginning of the workshop but starting on time and working through ( or literally amidst them) meant we finished on time and were no doubt a product of being a day one session one in a room issue... On the matter of room we would not that the ability to find the location of our session and it’s room down a corridor to a place labelled Workshop Halls 4 on the provided map when the Agenda used the room nomenclature 3 at this time on day 1 of the meeting made it difficult for both the panellists and the participants to find it. Better attention to signposting or directions would have assisted particularly at the start of the meeting.