[governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments?

[Ian Peter]

Jeanette is right, my comments have not been included in this draft (an easy
enough oversight as I know)




> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:12:22 +0000
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments?
> 
> Hi Jeremy, thanks for posting an updated version. You did not include
> Ian's comments did you?
> 
> I have more issues with the text, I just havn't posted them yet since I
> thought we would proceed para by para.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of
>> the IGF*
>> 
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (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 formally
>> convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a
>> Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department
>> of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).
>> 
>> 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 further 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 for instance
>> 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.
>> 
>> *About the IGC*
>> 
>> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are
>> actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the
>> lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our
>> mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet
>> governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual
>> subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.
>>  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org
>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/>.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> *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&i
>> nt1stParentNodeID=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