[governance] igc at igf - process issues in making a statement on the behalf of IGC

[Parminder]

Hi All

 

Since McTim and Robert Guerra have raised questions about the validity and
legitimacy of the process by which the second statement (mostly on process)
was read at the IGF consultations on the behalf of IGC, I have the following
explanation to offer.

 

First of all, I don't think this is the first time that a statement has been
hurriedly prepared during or on the eve of a meeting and presented on the
behalf of the IGC. I wonder if the two contesting parties in the present
instance too have been a part of such an exercise at some time. In this
context it is important to note that these statements on most of these
earlier occasions were made without any legal basis, while the one made in
Geneva had a statutory basis in the relevant parts of the IGC charter quoted
earlier by Avri and others. 

 

Now the question is whether it adhered to the relevant provisions of the
charter. I will describe the sequence of events for members to make their
judgment. On 21st Adam noted in an email to the list that we are missing the
opportunity to comment on process issues, and that he had expected me to
prepare a statement. Bill wondered in response to Adam's email if there was
any time at all to prepare a statement at that point. Avri in response
quoted the charter provisions with the opinion that these could still be
used for a statement. Bill then wrote asking me if I could still draft a
statement as per provisions etc. I replied to the original email of Adam's
that I hadn't prepared a second statement on 'process' (apart form the one
on 4 themes which was already adopted) because of certain apprehensions that
some process issues were connected to some tacit understandings when the
substantive main themes related statement was agreed to, and I was unsure
about possibility of caucus's consensus on some important process issues
(see my email dt 22nd). However, I said I will put together some points on
process which, to quote my email, 'in my understanding seem to have wide
acceptance in the caucus' and present it to the evening CS plenary and the
next morning IGC meeting for reactions. (One must note that in the second
'process' statement there were really none of any 'pet' issues that I may
been pushing for in my individual capacity, and therefore there could have
been no great personal interest in my pushing this statement. I was only
doing my co-coordinator duty on the requests by caucus members that a
'process' statement too should be attempted.)

 

Robert, you have said in your email dt 23rd that if only we would have at
least checked online, at least you and others who are often/ mostly online
could have responded. But then all the above exchanges on the IGC list about
attempting a quick statement on behalf of the IGC took place 2 full days
prior to the statement being prepared, and if you indeed were against such
last minute preparation of any statement as a valid and legitimate 'process'
(and not necessarily with reference to its substantive content) as McTim's
and your objection seem to be about, my simple question to you is, why didnt
you come in on 21st and 22nd to the list and object to the process of
attempting any such statement.. As per your convictions stated now, you
should at that point have said, no, this is not a proper process in your
view... Why come in with your views post facto, when the 'event' and the
exchanges took place in your full view over two full days? I really hope you
will answer this simple question. 

 

Back to the process of adoption of our statement, after the above exchange
on the IGC list, we presented the issue of making a statement at the CS
plenary on the evening  of 22nd  , which is in accordance with our mission
statement in our charter '..to provide a mechanism for coordination of
advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and
the IGC in relevant policy processes' and objective 4 'Provide outreach to
other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in some aspect of Internet
governance polices'. 

 

It is at that meeting that the suggestion for including Human Rights as a
cross-cutting theme for the IGF-2 came from Robin Gross (a caucus member),
and there was general agreement for it. (this is the only substantive issue
that McTim, on a specific inquiry from Bill, was able to point as something
he objected to in our statement). After this meeting, I reached my hotel
room very late, and only on the early morning of 23rd, the day of IGF
consultations could I prepare a draft statement, drawing on the approved Feb
statement, adding a point or two which in my understanding represented
'assumed general thinking of the caucus' (IGC charter), including the point
of HR as a cross cutting theme. In this matter, apart from the fact pointed
out by Bill that we have always endorsed HR as a key issues and principle,
it may be noted that our vision statement mentions 'the realization of
internationally agreed human rights' right at the start. I posted the draft
at 830 AM Geneva time on the IGC list. As per point 5 of the section on
statements during meeting in our charter, an important criterion for such
statements is that they reflect vision, objectives etc as per our charter.
Here we had a direct copy-paste from the first line of our vision statement.


 

The statement was read out to the 17 members present in the morning IGC
meeting, and those present were asked not only to give their view on the
content of the statement, but also, whether the statement in their opinion
represented the 'assumed general thinking of the caucus' as per point 2 and
5 of the section on statements at meeting of the charter. And there was a
general agreement that it did. 

 

So,McTim, you are wrong when  you say per your email dt 23rd that

 

"I also don't think it passes criteria #2, if it did, we would have
explicitly mentioned/included it in our statement."

 

Of course, the statement itself is for external consumption that it will be
stupid to include these kinds of internal issues in the statement itself.
However, when I put the draft on the IGC list on 23rd morning before the
meeting, I did say that 

 

"If there is a good amount of consensus among those present, with a shared
acceptance that this draft reflects positions that are generally understood
to have been accepted/ endorsed by the caucus (emphasis added now), it will
form a spoken input into the consultation on the behalf of the IG caucus."

 

So, point 2 of the referred section of the charter was always on our mind,
and we made sure it passed that criterion - both subjectively, as well as
with reference to the view of all those present.  

 

I will be happy to provide any other clarification if necessary. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

 <http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070531/d42d6a48/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070531/d42d6a48/attachment.txt>