Statement at November IGF open consultation meeting, 22 November 2010, Geneva
My name is Izumi Aizu. I was selected as the new co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus from October.
First, I'd like to echo with all the comments, appreciations to the hosts of the Vilnius meeting, but also especially not only the government of Lithuania, we'd like to appreciate the privacy sector and the civil society local people there who hosted a wonderful meeting.
What worked well and what didn't work well?
We'd like to make it into the suggestions for the future, reflecting these.
We'd like to see an improved, stronger link between the workshops and the main sessions, and perhaps including the possibility of doing all, or most, of the workshops up front. Say in the first two days, workshops only, and then feedback these outcomes of the workshops to the main sessions later for another two days.
We also suggest giving more strict obligations to the workshop organizers, in line with the idea of the feed to the main session, to provide summaries of the workshops directly to the main sessions and also to the whole outcome of the IGF.
We would also like to point out that the MAG and the Secretariat are strongly encouraged to directly foster discussions and debate on the difficulties, using the main session, instead of avoiding them.
In this context, IGC would also like to see that we try to come up with messages or recommendations in certain areas where all stakeholders could reach [rough] consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as a model or common framework. And also, the working process towards achieving or building these consensuses will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.
Now, let us give more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, as has been suggested by many others. Making more direct links to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to those who are not yet involved in IGF process, we think. The same level of working framework of IGF, such as multistakeholder composition and inclusion of civil society groups, where such practice is relatively new or scarce, should be maintained.
The remote hub center moderators at Vilnius IGF made good progress, as we all acknowledged. We are very proud to have civil society members -- Ginger and Marilia in particular -- took strong leadership for the remote moderation, thus setting a very good precedent to follow. Furthermore, we like to propose to try to organize some sessions completely on line. A full remote session. This may or will create level playing field among all participants so that everyone becomes remote and equal -- there's no center -- and may also demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools, technologies, media, and may also improve the quality of the services that support these, in turn.
Finally, we have another bold suggestion. That is to increase linguistic diversity. Currently, English is the only default working language at IGF main sessions, but we think it doesn't have to be so all the way. How about other U.N. major languages -- other than English, I mean -- at certain sessions, main sessions or occasions, as a main working language? Be it Spanish or Chinese or French or Arabic, perhaps, and the scripts also, and these be translated into other U.N. languages such as English. This will increase the outreach to the non-English-speaking population globally and will give more sense of ownership.
We, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, would like to continue with other stakeholders to the improvement of IGF processes together with the enhanced cooperation processes.
Thank you very much.