[governance] Fwd: Letter from stakeholders re: Working Group on Improvements to the IGF membership

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<AANLkTi=p=2dGyVeJ4TJ_COQEfZQ1CaOk5MWPACMi-Gid at mail.gmail.com>, at 
01:13:44 on Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes

There has been a certain amount of "fog of war" surrounding the meetings 
of 6th December and 17th December.

But based on Frederic's letter you quoted earlier, plus this summary on 
the website:

http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs//cstd2010d08_en.pdf

...it seems that the Working Group *itself* will meet some time between 
15th-17th, and be composed of 20 member states only.

>Are there ways to let the same country make different choice if it is
>reconvened?  Am not sure.
>
>What would be the most effective ways to reverse this decision? We need
>wisdom.

But there is *also* a Consultation, open to Member States, ECOSOC 
consultative and WSIS accredited entities, on the 17th.

This is consistent with the statement from Thomas Schneider at the IGF 
session in Cartagena that "everyone who can, should be there, and tell 
the CSTD Member states how they feel about this..." (recording @ 
1:07:35)

So the best thing to do would be to use that consultation meeting to 
express both the appropriate views on IGF reform, and also the 
fundamental composition of the Working Group.

It might also be possible for a member state to raise the issue at the 
start of the session on the 15th.

However, with the short period of time available to write the WG's 
report, and the opportunity for a 'proper' multistakeholder WG meeting 
this week having been denied, I feel that realistically the best outcome 
to be hoped for is some sort of "group of multistakeholder advisors" to 
attach themselves to the 20-member WG during 2011, somewhat in the style 
of the IGF Chair's "special advisors".

If someone was going to propose that (and maybe canvass some 
member-state support for the idea) it would be handy to have some kind 
of shortlist of candidates for these positions. I'd suggest maybe 3+3+3 
from Business, Civil Society and Technical Community.

Other options could include:

    walking away from the whole thing,

    getting member states to force a complete re-think on the 15th
    despite the delay it will cause, and

    a focussed lobbying campaign directed at the 20 member countries to
    send representatives who are briefed with the multistakeholder view.

ps We know 5 of the countries (ex-hosts) but don't know the other 15 
yet. Perhaps they'll discuss that on the 15th as well.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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