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

[Lee W McKnight]

I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. 

9 February is probably a more plausible target.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the

Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support,
others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions.
Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find
out which elements find general support?

jeanette

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 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 UN’s 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_
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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