[governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION

Thu Jan 28 08:54:38 EST 2010

Hello Jeremy,

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> Siva I do appreciate these suggestions for improvement, but are they all
> "deal breakers" for you?  If not, can I request that you narrow them down to
> the parts of the text that you simply cannot abide in their present form?
>  If there are just some changes that would be "nice to have", I ask you to
> hold back on demanding those at this late stage of settling the text.
>

It is late and in commenting on the 'final'draft, my intention wasn't to
hinder or delay the IGC from sending its statement. Most of my comments
would fit into "nice to have" category However I will classify them in
detail here:

Strongly feel about INCLUDING 'However, if' and feel that that part of the
statement could be changed to read ""We emphasize that the merits of an
extended IGF is appreciated by the UN and its organs and we urge the UN to
extend the mandate for another five years. We believe that the IGF in the
next five years would continue to be increasingly valuable as its pattern of
all round improvements continues. " (as replacement for that portion of your
original text that I had shown in parenthesis)

Strongly feel about INCLUDING  (as replacement for that portion of your
original text that I had shown in parenthesis) "In its process of
transition, we consider it important that the UN Secretary General continues
to convene the IGF; *We are opposed to any proposal for an enhanced role for
the ITU in the renewed IGF *(The ITU is dangerous and would do immense harm
to the Internet).  If the UN so wishes, it could consider several models of
transition, all with a continued mandate from the United Nations. possibly
with a independent model of funding." (it is good to make the IGC
independant, but independant in such a way that ITC does not get in. And it
is also important for the IGF to have an official 'status' which is why I
emphasized the need for a continuing UN mandate.)

Strongly feel about DROPPING the suggestion to limit the number of MAG
meeting to a maximum of one.

Would be nice to include this comment and suggestion: 'We also believe that
the IGF introduces a participatory process to design the main sessions "

The statement about the inclusion of rights could stay because most of IGC
is in favor of pushing the Rights agenda. My differences on this is subtle,
My position is that it would be nice to define and proclaim rights, without
considering Rights as the central task and insisting on a "rights-based"
approach to Internet Governance. I stand alone in my objection. It is
sufficient if IGC takes note that I am opposed to this statement, but IGC
could proceed with this statement as it chooses to. I reserve further
comments on this.

The rest of my comments are intended to smoothen the flow. If you don't
consider it as a comment on your choice of words, if it is OK for you to
admit some of these changes, it would be nice to change parts of the
statement changed to what I have suggested.

( I should also say that I sent my comments in a hurry - without including a
'preamble' or explaining the rationale. When I read what I wrote, it sounded
like a confrontation with you. It was not intended to sound like that.)

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

>
> Thanks!
>
> On 28/01/2010, at 3:23 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
> Hello Jeremy
>
> (I have placed part of your text and part of what I have written in
> parenthesis to indicate what may not form part of the IGC statement)
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:07 AM, 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 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the
>> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.
>>
>
> (However if,)
>>
>
> (This "however, if" uncertainty does not send the right signals to all the
> organizations involved in the process of reviewing the IGF mandate for
> renewal. It conveys doubt rather than 'hope' that the mandate would be
> extended. It sounds as if we ourselves do not believe in the IGF cause and
> the merits of an extended IGF.)
>
>
>> (as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further termthere
>> 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.)
>>
>
> (It might sound better if this sentence is changed to)
>
> "We emphasize that the merits of an extended IGF is appreciated by the UN
> and its organs and we urge the UN to extend the mandate for another five
> years. We believe that the IGF in the next five years would continue to be
> increasingly valuable as its pattern of all round improvements continues.
>
>
>>
>> (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 such as the ITU.)
>>
>
> In its process of transition, we consider it important that the UN
> Secretary General continues to convene the IGF; We are opposed to any
> proposal for an enhanced role for the ITU in the renewed IGF.  If the UN so
> wishes, it could consider several models of transition, all with a continued
> mandate from the United Nations. possibly with a independent model of
> funding.
>
> 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.)
>>
>
> to set right the present imbalance of a higher proportion of members from
> the Government.
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
> more included in such tasks as the setting of
>
>
>> (improved is in setting) the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.
>>
>
> We also believe that the IGF introduces a participatory process to design
> the main sessions
>
>
>>  Although at present the 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.
>>
>
> (My views on this point differs from that of most of the IGC participants,
> so I refrain from commenting on the above statement)
>
>>
>> (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)
>>
>
> (An assumption such as this is out of place in a formal statement such as
> this)
>
>
>> (In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that
>> there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010.)
>>
>
> (What is the purpose of restricting the number of meetings to one in this
> crucial year? I would rather propose that the members of MAG is stationed in
> Geneva in extended sessions to discuss the tasks related to extension of the
> mandate)
>
>
>
>> (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.)
>>
>
> The IGC considers it unnecessary to alter the practice of rotation of MAG
> members.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I feel that we need to have further discussion on this before proposing a
> human rights agenda for the Vilinius meeting.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *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
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100128/ff4ec401/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