[governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION

Wed Jan 27 08:51:19 EST 2010

Hi Jeanette,

I have been particularly uncomfortable with the ambiguous claiming
through phrases like "It is perceived by some" as it makes a lot of
suspicion in our own activities. I had earlier requested elsewhere
that these statements should represent consensus through absolute
statements mutually agreed and not ambiguities. Secondly, we all know
that not many MAG members were in approval of cancelling the MAG
meeting of Sept 2009 but the decision was still taken ahead.

As far as how this paragraph states, somehow this perception is not
from us CS MAG members because we are well aware what happened and
what has been happening. Maybe having a Sept meeting could have solved
the issues to "some extent" only but yes with more participation and
coordination, MAG members ''could have" countered some of the issues
in a possible Sept 2009 meet. Right now the issue is that even this
advantage that CS groups have through its MAG representation may also
face a certain level of setback due to the experimentation going on
though this is only an assumption at this stage. My question has been
why hasn't this experimentation been done through a MAG meeting with
proper discourse on it from all group representations.

I feel that the new MAG members selected last year never even went
through the complete MAG process so instead of adding advantage to the
MAG interventions, we were not allowed to complete the process and a
great deal of that was also observed during the IGF2009. This is a
back to back kind of situation or where we say viz-a-viz and even vice
versa. Where the change was supposed to happen, the process got
lagged, changes and innovations required were delayed. The Internet
and its issues have been increasing at the rate of Moore's Law but the
speed of the IGF itself has been decreasing to improve the open and
global dialogue that takes place through it.

I feel that the MAG has to face a bit of openness and creativity here
as well because of some slight changes it did not foresee happening.
The people and the MAG combined will be the test which is a very open
approach indeed. What will have to be seen is that how the MAG will
take into account necessary decisions for the program settings. I feel
that the representatives of the three multistakeholder groups will be
able to closely and actively work with their MAG members to take the
possible substantial innovations/changes/improvements and/or
finalizations. It would be worth a try but I am still not too sure how
this will work and has to be experienced. This would actually innovate
the underlying governance model of this global dialogue space and
maybe the world is closely watching with keen interest to what will be
the outcome.

The idea for the open consultations/public meetings before the IGF2009
seemed like a pretty good idea and was an improvement in deciding how
things should go forward but the capturing of the floor by
international organizations and the members from the multistakeholder
groups to tell stories about how wonderful their organizations and
projects were a bit of a noise and disturbing. I walked in and out of
a same session thrice and I heard ICANN repeating the same story about
its multistakeholder approach and ITU's attempts to share how their
contributions were being made. Something was really wrong with the
program I tell you and it goes to all of us MAG members and our
colleagues present in the public meetings not being able to fix there
problems that could have been done so with proper intervention but how
could they be, we weren't left the possibility. I am yet to find
innovation or changes in a locked down schedule.

Please think and rethink what we want to do this year and how we want
IGF2010 to be. Should it be a wrestling ring for ICANN and ITU or
should it be the actual space themed and organized for its original
mandate?

Best

Fouad

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> I have objections with the above sentence. All MAG members who participated
> in the May meeting should know better. We cannot talk about details in
> public  but even a glance at the transcript of the open consultation should
> make it clear that there was strong disagreement among MAG members in Spring
> 2009 on the 2009 agenda. A formal MAG meeting in September would not have
> solved these issues.
>
> The link between the open planning session in September and the substance of
> the 2009 agenda is, in my eyes, completely unfounded. The minimum I would
> thus ask for is that the sentence above says "It is perceived by some". I
> certainly don't perceive it that way and I am very surprised that others who
> participated in these meetings do.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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&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
>
____________________________________________________________
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