[governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus

[Ginger Paque]

Milton said:

"Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen."

Milton, I indeed think that we are "simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen".

This is not a new position for the IGC, as one of our previous IGF Review statements says:

"In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in
mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at
present, including constituencies in developing counties including
those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG
issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also
be especially reached out to."

However, since that is not clear to everyone, I propose continuing from basically the same text as before, but in a different order (below). I also think, as indirectly suggested by Jeanette, that the 2 points (inclusion and intergovernmental organization) should be separated for emphasis and clarity, so I have also separated that point as well.

I ask that those who would like to include other points please post text for discussion and inclusion.

Re-organizeded version (previous version below):

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 implementation of the principle of multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present. 

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not yet been fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process. The IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by a broader base of possible stakeholders and the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed.

We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion, particularly given the success of the multistakeholder organization thus far.

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.



Previous statement:

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 acceptance of the principle of 
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that 
from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been  
fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial 
interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety 
of reasons not been engaged in this process.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the 
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
and with the counter-proposal 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.



Milton L Mueller wrote:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>
>> Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic
>> criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed
>> reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault---
>> the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point
>> to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You
>> can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/
>> global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be
>> trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.
>> as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of
>> marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something
>> concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not
>> blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap
>> shot as a main thrust.
>>     
>
>
> Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen.
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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