[governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the

Wed Jan 13 14:13:57 EST 2010

HI Jeremy, a couple of small comments  but generally I support the
statement.

>But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition
of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups,
rather than being slanted towards >particular stakeholder groups as it is at
present.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role
in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more
>transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open
mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations
publicly.

I think we have discussed the second mailing list concept before and there
is very little evidence from other organisations that have done this that
the open mailing list will get used. People default to the closed list, I
have seen this happen in a few organisations. I would leave that example
out.

>A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of
the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF
meetings.  Although at present this responsibility >falls to the MAG, the IGC
was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders
from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was
not reflected >in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting.

It wasn¹t just civil society  the concept had wide support from other
stakeholders including some governments as well  I would say ³civil society
and other stakeholders²

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:35:19 +0000
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF

Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results
that I just posted to the list.  If we cannot obtain consensus on this
statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 February to
keep working.  However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" statement, I hope
that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible.

If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I will
ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, which
according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for discussion
before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has been achieved.
Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we will be able to ask
the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems likely that a consensus
can be reached. 

--- begins ---

The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society
and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the
UN¹s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to
the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to
provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of
civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. More about our
coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org>
.

The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder
forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However
if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term,
there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into
account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its
inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter
the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain
situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by
the UN.

However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation,
it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately
accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders.  Within the IGC,
there are various views on how this can be best assured.  Some believe that
the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG.  Others
feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were
taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular
stakeholders) who appointed them.

But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the
composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the
stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder
groups as it is at present.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should
have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG
discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could
revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and
Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly.

One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of
stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the
IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe that the
MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to
exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future
structure and processes of the IGF.

A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability
of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF
meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC
was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of
stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights
agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the
Sharm el Sheikh meeting.

The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards
the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to
recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members
would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take,
efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant
external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on
the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate.

Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise
its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program,
rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of our members
believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program
for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and
intersessional and regional meetings.

Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be
left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working
groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better
mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the
IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent
standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes,
and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition.

We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which
reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil
society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We
look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in
the IGF over the course of its renewed term.
-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
rights around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&
int1stParentNodeID=89765> . Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
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/20100114/b4991eb9/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