[governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF and projects

[Fouad Bajwa]

> A statement of input to the IGF Secretariat before the Jan. 15 deadline and/or for the OC (Jeremy, Fouad?)

Hi Ginger and all, please read this because this a very important
understanding we have to develop if I am to take upon a responsibility
for my group:

I'm already in on this and we need more input of our members because
the IGC is because of its membership unless we understand why we need
our statements in the first place and for which occasion we need
statements as well as how can we structure a dynamic response group
within the MAG and how our statements can make an impact from the OC
to the MAG and then finally at the IGF.
WHO DO WE REPRESENT AND HOW

As you have seen how the Open Consultations and the MAG meetings take
place, participants and members of a particular stakeholder group take
active stand over issues together and they struggle to ensure that
they push it through. Let's say that we take the private sector for
example, an XYZ company says that they think this and that and a
particular issues about abc should be brought into the main program of
the IGF. You would immediately see the parent body/group/caucus
declare a statement that the IIMNOP supports XYZ company's statement
and would like to re-emphasize issues about abc should be brought into
the main program of the IGF. They protect, they back, they coordinate
and they construct effective response and backing papers in light of
their member's statements.
WE DO NOT AND THIS MUST BE FIXED

The above is what I noted that probably Kati (when she shared that we
should produce working policy papers, documents to help us during the
meetings, show our members interests and back those interests) and
other new IGC MAG members were feeling in the open consultations/MAG
meeting that IGC despite having a good amount of its representatives
there in both has no strong active live procedure to take this into
account. Each IGC member group/community/organization/representative
after giving its stance does not get the backing statement from IGC
like the private sector and governments get from that group that leads
them. If we don't learn from this and mend our approach, we will never
be in a position to counter the pressure that builds up and we cannot
even shake it.
WE NEED TO KNOW OUR RESPONSE AND COUNTERING METHODOLOGY IS

What is right has to be adopted and has to be done in the right
manner. First of all before I attempt to run through the lists and
pick up concerns of the members of IGC, I want us to read a primary
structural agreement that IGC's participating members in Open
Consultations and MAG meetings are to be allowed to present that IGC
as being present in both OC's and MAG meetings and that whenever one
member group/organization/representative from the IGC multistakeholder
group makes a statement, a representative or a group of
representatives (so that we can balance the response when a member is
out of the room for a water/coffee/rest break) can continue to press
and strengthen IGCs position as a stakeholder and counter negative
propaganda.
WE HAVE TO SHOW WE ARE THERE AND WE BACK OUR MEMBERS AND WE KNOW WHAT
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

I appreciate what Jeremy is trying to do in his profound role but we
have to realize that co-ordinators help reach a decision, not
construct the decision or encourage construction of the decision
unless they want to develop a rough consensus based decision when the
membership can't reach any decision. This survey can be just that but
it is a time-waster for those that will be in the OCs and MAG meetings
in February because in the OCs you can only give a 2-3 minutes
(otherwise you are cut short by the Chair to facilitate other
stakeholders as well) to share statements from IGC on this issue but
in the MAG we cannot discuss this unless the Chair particularly asks
for comments on such an issue because the MAG plans the proposed
program of the IGF and that is why I felt that the survey wasn't
reflecting what the MAG actually is doing and secondly for any change
two other stakeholders will also be consulted that is the Governments
and the Private sector.
WE HAVE TO REALIZE WHAT ROLE WE ARE PLAYING AND STRENGTHEN THE WEAK
SPOTS AND STOP COUNTERING OURSELVES IN THE PROCESS INSTEAD OF
COUNTERING WHAT REALLY HAS TO BE

I would also like to emphasize here that if the IGC doesn't utilize
both its OC participation and MAG representatives in the MAG to their
fullest or at at least at an equal counter level to the other
stakeholder groups of the multistakeholdership that have been
countering us on the issues of Human Rights and the Development Agenda
and numerous other areas, we are doing something wrong and we are
trying to grab the same from either side without realizing that we are
not strengthening ourselves as the key member of the
multistakeholdership within our position. Our statements go in vain
when all our members and representatives aren't on the same page where
as the private sector or government sector makes one statement and
every member and parent association backs their statement because it
serves their common good and they lobby too.
CIVIL SOCIETY MORNING MEETING IS A GOOD IDEA BUT WITH ONLY ONE PERSON
WITH THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOESN'T EMPOWER THE REST OF THE GROUP
FOR BACKUP - WE HAVE TO BE OPEN ABOUT OUR AGENDAS

Let me show you where we bring a certain amount of change. The issue
about Youth and Gender Balance got some great deal of support from
everyone combined. A great deal of member stakeholders of the
multistakeholdership encouraged the secretariat to look into this and
there was less resistance. Interestingly, during lunch break or maybe
it was tea break we tried to meet with each of our
member/representative and request them to share their views on this
and then the next two hours, almost each one of our
member/representative present backed each other. The message was
simple, the IGC came in strong and we got a strong level of backing
from our members/reps present. That was the IGC.
SOMETHING WORKED REALLY GOOD IN BETWEEN US - WE HAVE A WONDERFUL
CHEMISTRY, IT SHOULDN'T BE CONTROLLED - WE SHOULD ADOPT THE STARFISH
MODEL NOT THE SPIDER MODEL - WE CAN FEEL EACHOTHER

Now during the IGF, apart from Ginger's address as a speaker, there
were hardly any statements from the IGC nor did many members of the
IGC on the floor make a statement that "The IGC Feels" whereas the
transcripts are full of the governments groups (EU, Commonwealth etc.)
and the private sector (ICC, ICANN, CISCO, etc....) making continuous
statements and countering the debate. I for one moment stood up and
started by saying we from the developing world. Who was we? See that's
what happens when we operate in a controlled environment but which is
neither actually controlled or has no controllers. We have to work
together as IGC members and representatives and protect the interests
of the IGC be that a ten-pointer, fifty-pointer, 100-pointer or
whatever we can build consensus upon and take that forward from the
OC's to the MAG and to the IGF and show our stakeholders. We should be
free to make IGC background material and take statements and make
statements at the Open Consultations from IGC for IGC, protecting its
members interests and concerns and defining the way forward given by
its members.
LETS FIX WHAT WE NEED TO FIX FROM WITHIN AND THEN TELL THE WORLD WHAT
THEY NEED TO FIX

Our, APC's and the IRP statements would be very similar I feel because
those statements are all going in separate statements but we can put
them together in one too if they feel that the IGC is their
representative group and will be able to voice and protect their
interests and concerns. So our statement has a strong foundation for
our OC and MAG participants and we can continuously reference that and
keep raising our already accepted statements.
LETS WORK ON THIS AND IMPROVE OUR ENGAGEMENT IN THE IGF

THE IGC APPEALS TEAM (according to the IGC charter):
In the end, as a member of the IGC Appeals Team, I would like to share
with members that you have democracy to voice your concerns. As the
Appeals team, we are a team of five (5) IGC members Appeals Team
(selected in 2009) Jeanette Hofmann (Europe), Adam Peake (Asia),
Carlos Afonso (LAC), Ken Lohento (Africa) and Myself (Mid East/South
Asia) and the Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the
appeals team.

Our IGC duties:  Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a
statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of
the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will
review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from
the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and
discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by
the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team,
i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator
recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team
will be final on every decision reviewed.

Will all the Appeals Team members please share their email addresses
with me if I haven't gotten in touch with anyone in order to be able
to communicate where needed and required? Mine is displayed in the
from of this message.

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Jean-Louis, Parminder and others that we must see "Jeremy's"
> online survey as an informal tool to get a feel for the ideas to be
> expressed in an IGC statement. Writing a statistically valid survey is a lot
> of work and a long process, in my opinion, not necessary in this case. I
> again suggest that those who want to opine take the survey and use the text
> boxes or the email list to express opinions not clearly stated in the
> survey, or to ask questions if clarifications are needed.
>
> Jeremy, thanks for taking on this project. I look forward to your first
> proposal for discussion on the topic.
>
> As soon the new year starts (tomorrow and on!!!) we can get moving on other
> proposals, such as reviewing the membership (Parminder, Rui, Antonio Medina,
> myself )
>
> The Web Page (Jeremy?)
>
> Voting and charter reviews (Paul? Craig? Fearghas?) others
>
> A statement of input to the IGF Secretariat before the Jan. 15 deadline
> and/or for the OC (Jeremy, Fouad?)
>
> GAID discussion (Michael G and others)
>
> Other topics to continue, such as improving the IGC working format.
>
> I look forward to an exciting and productive 2010 working with all of you.
> Please do join the discussion to make sure we hear all voices.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Parminder wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position on
> IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list so that
> the coordinators can attempt a consensus position.
>
> I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed to
> provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we have
> often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have a chance
> of putting our views forward, now through the channel of government reps
> that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete suggestion for IGF
> reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ discussion on IGF
> continuation  finally comes up at the UN general assembly or at the CSTD
> (there is a confusion at this stage how the process will go forward).
>
> While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had
> pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing  - the
> danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be closed
> down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to propose real
> improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we breathe but one
> word on possible improvements, it may be taken as statement of failure of
> the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting down the IGF, or seeking an
> ITU take over of it.
>
> One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even diversionary,
> can be found in the fact that recently a UN general assembly resolution
> for  more stable public/ UN funding  for the IGF  (which some groups tend to
> equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot down, and another one calling
> for more voluntary contributions to the trust fund  (status quoist)  was
> adopted. One can clearly see here who calls the shots and which way the wind
> is blowing.
>
> So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the
> kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new
> options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some
> possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have
> earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a clearer
> role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, including of
> developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF mandate based on the
> proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There could be other
> possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe speak out at Feb
> meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear of some gov reps,
> and also pass our views on directly to interested gov reps.
>
> Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010!
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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