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

Fri Jan 15 15:42:45 EST 2010

Hello All,

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> 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,
>

Should we express uncertainty in our communication about the extension of
the forum? "However, if, as we hope, the mandate is to be extended..."

> 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).
>

I have different thoughts on this. The IGF came into being as a forum under
the UN umbrella and remained so for the first 5 years. IGF's further
evolution should be as an independent forum, independent even of the United
Nations. The IGF somehow sustained itself though its multi-stakeholder
discussion setting free of rules and procedures is completely opposite to UN
way of working.  So, UN may have to consider freeing the IGF as
an independent forum but with total and full endorsement and of the UN, its
member states as with the endorsement of other stakeholders.

>
> 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.
>

Are we in a position to provide facts and figures to substantiate the
statement that the MAG is "slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as
at present" ?

> Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in
> the selection of MAG members,
>

I believe that the MAG should have a dominant role in the selection of new
members rather than allow this process happen beyond the purview of the MAG.

> and that MAG discussions should be more transparent
>

MAG meetings are open and transcripts are published almost on the same day.
Why are we discontent? Because the mailing list is a closed list?

- 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.
>

We could ask for the mailing list to be opened up, but an open mailing list
wouldn't effectively co-exist with a closed mailing list.

>
> 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.
>

Here a specific issue is addressed which does not fit into the overall input
which is on broader topics.  Why are we talking specifically about how the
human rights agenda was placed at Sharm el Sheikh?

>
> 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.
>

Some processes are already in place. What needs to be done is to fine tune
these processes.

>
> 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.
>

At the moment we could focus on emphasizing the continuation of the IGF and
after this hurdle is passed, we can look deeper into its structure and pay
attention to the tasks of re-designing the IGF if needed.

>
> 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.
>
> --
>
> *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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100116/fb9233eb/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