[governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION

[McTim]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
> Here is the final version of our statement for the next open consultation, incorporating the latest comments made on the list.  A 48 hour consensus call on this will be made later this week.  Between now and then, please suggest only very important changes that would make the difference for you between supporting the statement and opposing it.

OK, here goes:


  <snip>


>
> 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.

No strong objection, but perhaps we could expand a bit and say how we
want transparency to be enacted.


> 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.


I'd rather say:

"Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC
would like to see these decisions made by consensus of all the
stakeholders."

As I said before, the second part of the sentence above sounds like we
are whinging about past decisions.


> 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.

ok

> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme.

Above is nothing to do with stock taking of 2009 meeting.  It should
be struck entirely IMO.


> The IGF should also consider how 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.

Strike entire para above.  The IGF has a hard enough  time publishing
its proceedings (due to workshop organisers not submitting reports,
etc).  I don't believe the IGF has the capacity to produce any other
outputs at this time and with its current budget.

> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  This could 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.

Strike entire para above.  The IGF has 3 intersessional work programs.
 One is the national and regional IGF processes, 2nd  is the MAG work,
3rd is the work of the DCs.


> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could 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.

Change above to:
Given that intersessional work is done by DCs and National and
Regional IGFs the IGC feels that there should be a better mechanism
than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF
as a whole.


> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.

I must have missed this in previous versions.  Is this the outputs
referred to above?  Isn't there a tremendous amount of background
material available online already? Doesn't the MAG already produce a
discussion synthesis? Asking MAG members to  take on more work sounds
to me like a "bridge too far".  I'd like to strike the entire para.


> 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.

I'd rather say:
"We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts,
which reflect a "rough consensus" of  discussions on the IGC mailing
list.

This bit:
"with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation."

belongs as inserted below:

> About the IGC
> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society

with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation

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.

--
Cheers,

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