[governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x

[McTim]

The below revised para takes Siva and Ians comments into account, as
well as the attached analysis.

My spreadsheet shows that governmental stakeholders have 40% of MAG
seats, While the PS has only 10%.  If we are going to argue that the
membership is slanted, lets call it like it is.  While some may not be
enthusiastic asking for greater PS representation, the numbers are
fairly clear.  My spreadsheet admittedly is a quick n dirty job,
comments/further analysis welcome.


"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 governmental
stakeholders 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."

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


> 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.
>
> --
>
> 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. 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: analysis of MAG membership.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 37376 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100117/2299588f/attachment.xls>