[governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes

Thu Jan 21 20:04:59 EST 2010

Hi Everyone,

Very good effort. A few suggestions if possible.

I would however like to add that I thought we weren't being heard in
the Open Consultations and MAG but I see that we are missing out
something I've continuously requested and its not just me but I saw a
great amount of support from our group at OCs and MAG meetings and our
members have been working towards it too.

We are missing out the Development Agenda of IG in the fourth
paragraph and I would like to request you to please include it as part
of this statement and I don't see any reason why it should be left out
and should be mentioned right after Human Rights as: "of human rights
and development agendas" or "of human rights agenda and a development
agenda" in the following:

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.

Secondly, in the second last paragraph:
"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."

I would suggest not to include the word "Other" and instead accept
this statement to be issued as that "IGC also believes". This is a
full statement from IGC being sent to the IGF Secretariat, the
statement in its own structure should not be a divided consensus. IF
we all are approving of this statement to be issued in consensus of
IGC members, it should be from an absolute IGC membership without
mentioning that our members are divided/partitioned within this
statement. I thought that IGC statements are IGC statements not a few
member this and a few member that and I believe we have all been
discussing a great deal of issues in the same sense but in different
words of understanding and explanation?

It would be very appropriate to change the following starting
statements in various paragraphs to absolute IGC ownership as a whole
group and not a divided one:
- Another widely-held view within the IGC
- Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC
- Others believe that the main responsibility

The above are necessary because I am yet to see any statement from any
other stakeholder groups of the multistakeholderism where members
stand divided in their statements? Hard to find any!

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> This statement is shrinking as the contentious parts are being removed, but
> even so it will still be a worthwhile statement, and I think we are getting
> close to being able to finalise it.  Please provide any final comments
> within the next few days, in the expectation that a 48 hour consensus call
> may be made next week.
> 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 Internet Governance Forum (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; for example, we are content that it 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).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a
> different UN body.
> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition
> of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (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.
> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of
> stakeholders could be improved 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.
> It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the
> September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of
> the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh.  In this context, we have an observation
> to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in
> 2010.  The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the
> IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive
> factor against the rotation.  However if a rotation does not take place,
> care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the
> Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone.
> Another widely-held view within the IGC is 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 through appropriate mechanisms.
> 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
>

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
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