[governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?

Fri Apr 23 12:35:47 EDT 2010

Could you be more specific here? It almost sounds like you are saying that appointed people for this MAG should have more power. I mean a power that is delegated by officers of the UN,,, and not the power that comes from insight, sound advice and hard work. Is it your thought that a mere voice and platform are not enough?  Are you saying that MAG members should be given respect and gravamen to their positions?

--- On Fri, 4/23/10, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

It is my opinion that if the IGF is at all to even attempt to address  half of its mandated tasks, which it has never addressed itself to - like giving advise, recommendations, interacting with other institutions etc - the only way to do so is to strengthen the MAG, and structure it appropriately for  these  tasks. There is no other way  - an open house like the IGF  cannot  do  these tasks on its own.  That is as  clear as the daylight.  MAG,  or  whatever name this core multistakeholder group of the IGF  takes, needs to have a central role in  addressing these parts of the mandate. 

This is why I have always considered any attempt at further diluting the role and structure of the MAG as a strong move in a direction exactly opposite to where we need to go, in fulfilling the mandate of the IGF.

The recent statement of G 77 and China at the UN Under Secretary General's briefing on IGF review  strongly makes  this point on  strengthening the capacity of the IGF to perform its above mentioned mandated tasks.

It is easy to badmouth developing country governments with regard to their stance on many IG related issues, especially on their perceived lack of enthusiasm for giving non-governmental groups a stronger role in IG issues, but the silences of civil society groups on such very legitimate issues - whereby the IGF is not enabled to fulfil its mandate of assisting in shaping global Internet policies - is heard loud and clear. Do such silences not justify developing country's suspicion of multistakeholder processes in IG? This of course is a deliberately provocative poser. 

Are we ready to really get down to the task of examining the strongly detrimental implications of the current vacuums in the global internet policy regimes, especially for the marginalised people, groups and countries? What can IGF do in this regard, and what was it expected to do? What should be the role and structure of MAG to enable what the IGF should ideally be able to do, and was mandated for it to do by the WSIS?

Parminder 

PS: Another interesting issue to ponder upon; If developing countries  want  the IGF -  the only  really multistakeholder body in  IG arena - to have a clearer role in global Internet policy arena - even if only of advising, interacting with other organisation etc , while many others (you know who) are not too enthusiastic about such a role for the IGF, who is more pro-multistakeholderism and who anti? 

Thanks, gp

On 4/22/2010 12:07 AM, Parminder wrote: 
Ginger

BTW, the MAG meeting on the 12th will consider/ assess MAG's own role in the IGF's process. A statement for that can perhaps be attempted. parminder 

Ginger Paque wrote: 
Hi,

My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From the IGF website:

The Preparatory Process The next meeting will be held as a planning meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on 10-11 May 2010. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
Registration will be opened shortly. 

The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on 12 May 2010.

From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

Best, Ginger

On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: 

Ginger,

Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" "invitation" for such a statement. 

--- On Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM

Hi everyone,

I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.

While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.

As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the IGC. 

Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.

Thanks! Regards, Ginger

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/fabf62c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t