[governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]

[Ginger Paque]

McTim (and all) Small proposed changes noted in CAPS:

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the NEW proposal WHICH SEEKS TO CREATE an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.

More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote participation.



McTim wrote:
> How's this:
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates
> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful
> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until
> the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
> broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the
> IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
> mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
> lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and
> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental
> forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
> review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
> participation.
>
> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current
> process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active
> inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but
> not limited to, remote participation.
>
>
> ---------------
>
>
> One sentence removed in one para and 2 words gone from another
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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