[governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus

[Ginger Paque]

Ian said:

---Perhaps right after the opening paragraph we should add something like "IGC
is firmly of the view that IGF should continue, and congratulates the
Secretariat for its work to date".

"(simply so no-one can pick up the statement and use our suggestions as an
argument that somehow we believe IGF is ineffective or should be abandoned)" (end Ian)---

I (Ginger) have added the requested sentence below (also changing the 
previous "congratulates" to "commends" to avoid repetition).  I ask that 
anyone with text for inclusion, please post it. I personally prefer a 
short, to-the-point statement, and am not clear on what others are 
asking to be added, so please post your views for discussion.

Current version:

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 commends the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its implementation of the principle of multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC is firmly of the view that the IGF should continue, and congratulates the Secretariat for its work to date.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the GF 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.



Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Ginger, 
>
> Perhaps right after the opening paragraph we should add something like "IGC
> is firmly of the view that IGF should continue, and congratulates the
> Secretariat for its work to date".
>
> (simply so no-one can pick up the statement and use our suggestions as an
> argument that somehow we believe IGF is ineffective or should be abandoned)
>
>
>
> On 8/06/09 2:09 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> 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
>>     
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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