<html>
<body>
I hope IGF could be strengthened through these 3 intersessional work
programs (One is the national and regional IGF processes, 2nd is
the MAG work,<br>
3rd is the work of the DCs.), as mentioned by McTim.<br><br>
Best regards,<br>
Hakikur Rahman<br><br>
<br>
At 13:28 27-01-2010, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN<br>
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)<br>
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC<br>
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE<br>
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)<br><br>
Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571<br>
+243811980914<br>
email:
<a href="mailto:b.schombe@gmail.com">b.schombe@gmail.com</a><br>
blog:
<a href="http://akimambo.unblog.fr">http://akimambo.unblog.fr</a><br>
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal,
Entrée A,7e niveau.<br><br>
<br>
2010/1/27 McTim
<<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>><br>
<dl>
<dd>On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm
<<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Here is the final version of our statement for the next open
consultation, incorporating the latest comments made on the list. A
48 hour consensus call on this will be made later this week.
Between now and then, please suggest only very important changes that
would make the difference for you between supporting the statement and
opposing it.<br><br>
<dd>OK, here goes:<br><br>
<br>
<dd> <snip><br><br>
<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the
composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be
more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being
slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present. Many
also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the
selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more
transparent.<br><br>
<dd>No strong objection, but perhaps we could expand a bit and say how
we<br>
<dd>want transparency to be enacted.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the
participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the
substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this
responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance
the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil
society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not
reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh
meeting.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>I'd rather say:<br><br>
<dd>"Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the
IGC<br>
<dd>would like to see these decisions made by consensus of all the<br>
<dd>stakeholders."<br><br>
<dd>As I said before, the second part of the sentence above sounds like
we<br>
<dd>are whinging about past decisions.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>> It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of
the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead
of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. In this context, we have an
observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG
meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken
on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the
IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a
rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not
result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in
stone.<br><br>
<dd>ok<br><br>
<dd>> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a
human rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of
a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting
theme.<br><br>
<dd>Above is nothing to do with stock taking of 2009 meeting. It
should<br>
<dd>be struck entirely IMO.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation
towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount
to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our
members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its
outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted
to relevant external institutions through appropriate
mechanisms.<br><br>
<dd>Strike entire para above. The IGF has a hard enough time
publishing<br>
<dd>its proceedings (due to workshop organisers not submitting
reports,<br>
<dd>etc). I don't believe the IGF has the capacity to produce any
other<br>
<dd>outputs at this time and with its current budget.<br><br>
<dd>> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF
should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to
a single annual meeting. This could include the development of an
ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through
online tools and intersessional and regional meetings.<br><br>
<dd>Strike entire para above. The IGF has 3 intersessional work
programs.<br>
<dd> One is the national and regional IGF processes, 2nd is
the MAG work,<br>
<dd>3rd is the work of the DCs.<br><br>
</dl> very good clarifiation, Tim <br>
<dl><br>
<dd>> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work
could be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific
working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there
should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present
their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to
begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open
membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder
composition.<br><br>
<dd>Change above to:<br>
<dd>Given that intersessional work is done by DCs and National and<br>
<dd>Regional IGFs the IGC feels that there should be a better
mechanism<br>
<dd>than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the
IGF<br>
<dd>as a whole.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG
members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion
synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the
IGF.<br><br>
<dd>I must have missed this in previous versions. Is this the
outputs<br>
<dd>referred to above? Isn't there a tremendous amount of
background<br>
<dd>material available online already? Doesn't the MAG already produce
a<br>
<dd>discussion synthesis? Asking MAG members to take on more work
sounds<br>
<dd>to me like a "bridge too far". I'd like to strike the
entire para.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these
thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several
hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and
gender representation. We look forward to continuing to
constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of
its renewed term.<br><br>
<dd>I'd rather say:<br>
<dd>"We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these
thoughts,<br>
<dd>which reflect a "rough consensus" of discussions on
the IGC mailing<br>
<dd>list.<br><br>
<dd>This bit:<br>
<dd>"with a wide spread of geographic and gender
representation."<br><br>
<dd>belongs as inserted below:<br><br>
<dd>> About the IGC<br>
<dd>> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil
society<br><br>
<dd>with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation<br><br>
<dd>who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF.
Formed<br>
<dd>during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information
Society<br>
<dd>(WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives
in<br>
<dd>Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than
400<br>
<dd>individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to
its<br>
<dd>Charter. More about our coalition can be found at<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.igcaucus.org">http://www.igcaucus.org</a>.<br><br>
<dd>--<br>
<dd>Cheers,<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<dd>McTim<br>
<dd>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it
is. A<br>
<dd>route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
</font>
<dd>____________________________________________________________<br>
<dd>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<dd>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>
<dd>For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>
<dd>Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br><br>
</dl><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br><br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>