[governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
Baudouin SCHOMBE
b.schombe at gmail.com
Fri Apr 23 05:18:19 EDT 2010
Hi all,
Arguments developed by Parminder are a very great obviousness. Developped
countries and certain emerging countries are very well represented within
MAG. The defended positions reflect the concerns of their area and their
respective countries. But a lot of number of African countries are not
present or inactive within MAG.
Usually civil society members talk about their countries. IGF continuity and
credibility require involvment and participation of all actors according to
the main trends of the implementation of WSIS resulting from Geneva Action
Plan and Agenda of Tunis.
However development of digital technology takes increasingly large
proportions and at high speed in some African countries.Paradoxically very
few African political decision makers take part about Internet Governance in
Africa.
Parminder raises here most important point which deserves attention on
behalf of African and other Members States of the United Nations.
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
+243811980914
email: b.schombe at gmail.com
blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.
2010/4/23 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder and all,
> Could we have ideas and positions on this possibility? From MAG members and
> non-MAG members, please?
>
>
> It is my opinion that if the IGF is at all to even attempt to address half
> of its mandated tasks, which it has never addressed itself to - like giving
> advise, recommendations, interacting with other institutions etc - the only
> way to do so is to strengthen the MAG, and structure it appropriately for
> these tasks. There is no other way - an open house like the IGF cannot
> do these tasks on its own. That is as clear as the daylight. MAG, or
> whatever name this core multistakeholder group of the IGF takes, needs to
> have a central role in addressing these parts of the mandate.
>
> This is why I have always considered any attempt at further diluting the
> role and structure of the MAG as a strong move in a direction exactly
> opposite to where we need to go, in fulfilling the mandate of the IGF.
>
> The recent statement of G 77 and China at the UN Under Secretary General's
> briefing on IGF review strongly makes this point on strengthening the
> capacity of the IGF to perform its above mentioned mandated tasks.
>
> It is easy to badmouth developing country governments with regard to their
> stance on many IG related issues, especially on their perceived lack of
> enthusiasm for giving non-governmental groups a stronger role in IG issues,
> but the silences of civil society groups on such very legitimate issues -
> whereby the IGF is not enabled to fulfil its mandate of assisting in shaping
> global Internet policies - is heard loud and clear. Do such silences not
> justify developing country's suspicion of multistakeholder processes in IG?
> This of course is a deliberately provocative poser.
>
> Are we ready to really get down to the task of examining the strongly
> detrimental implications of the current vacuums in the global internet
> policy regimes, especially for the marginalised people, groups and
> countries? What can IGF do in this regard, and what was it expected to do?
> What should be the role and structure of MAG to enable what the IGF should
> ideally be able to do, and was mandated for it to do by the WSIS?
>
>
> Parminder
>
> PS: Another interesting issue to ponder upon; If developing countries
> want the IGF - the only really multistakeholder body in IG arena - to
> have a clearer role in global Internet policy arena - even if only of
> advising, interacting with other organisation etc , while many others (you
> know who) are not too enthusiastic about such a role for the IGF, who is
> more pro-multistakeholderism and who anti?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, gp
>
> On 4/22/2010 12:07 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
> Ginger
>
> BTW, the MAG meeting on the 12th will consider/ assess MAG's own role in
> the IGF's process. A statement for that can perhaps be attempted. parminder
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning
> meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From the
> IGF website:
>
> *The Preparatory Process* The next meeting will be held as a planning
> meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on *10-11
> May 2010*. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
> Registration will be opened shortly.
>
> The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on *12 May 2010*.
>
> From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
>
> Best, Ginger
>
> On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> Ginger,
>
> Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request"
> "invitation" for such a statement.
>
> --- On *Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> <gpaque at gmail.com>*wrote:
>
>
> From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> <gpaque at gmail.com>
> Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <%27governance at lists.cpsr.org%27>
> <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as
> onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or
> questions), and to represent the IGC.
>
> While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen
> any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC
> membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.)
> groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting
> actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully
> imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC
> support, and to have consensus from the list.
>
> As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know
> what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the
> IGC.
>
> Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.
>
> Thanks! Regards, Ginger
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc807.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc807.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/b3784925/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list