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

[Fouad Bajwa]

I would like to agree with Parminder on the issues about MAG's role as
well as the situation on the open house.

The MAG is where the politics takes place and a mild form of stances
with lobbying happens with regards to the IGF process and is only the
tip (meaning programming of the IGF) and if the process was left to
the openness, really, the tasks and needs wouldn't find there way into
the program nor would help in the struggle to achieve the actual goal
of the IGF. The programs would be locked without consensus, many of
the small changes that could find there way into the program would
never happen.

I took this perception with me into the MAG that IGC's stance is the
mandate we take to the MAG, to represent and protect IGC's interests.
That is why before every MAG or OC I have requested IGC to forward
either a statement or list of items that we need to pursue. The issue
of IG4D was a long standing one but it found place in the main program
but not with one stakeholder group. It was supported by all
multistakeholders. In my opinion, this is an example of IGC's OC
presence and then its members as MAG presence and efforts to make
aware other stakeholder groups. One group brings the issue up, it is
heard both at OCs and the IGF itself and it finds its way back into
the MAG and into the program. That's how the required change and much
anticipated innovation slowly happens in the IGF. What would happen if
this mechanism would also be lost? This role or maybe we can call it a
political position shouldn't be dropped at all.

Developing countries are slow to realize the importance of MAG and the
IGF as an aid to their Internet policy making efforts but wasn't this
also a much heard mission to build the capacity of
countries/developing countries on IG?

I've been visiting both sides of the Internet now, the ICANN and the
IGF. Guess what, IGF is the last thing many want to be fulfilling the
mandate of giving advise, recommendations, interacting with other
institutions on Internet issues - guess who does want to stay in and
play this role? and to tell you the truth, I continue to see that the
Internet is really affected by a couple of big pockets and misguidance
of governance in various roles and the smaller nations being kept away
from the real issues.

As Parminder points it out clearly, who's role would it be to guide
the developing countries. Unless our MAG members have any other
personal interests, I think we would all agree to the point's
Parminder made. We should have a strong stance with a statement here
that should cover:

1. IGC's say on the continuation of the MAG
2. Improvement in terms of representation - more members on the MAG
from developing countries - especially governments
3. IGC's emphasis on the IGF mandate and to somehow cover advise,
recommendations, interaction with other institutions



On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder and all,
> Could we have ideas and positions on this possibility? From MAG members and non-MAG members, please?
>
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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