[governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION

Thu Jan 28 12:50:35 EST 2010

Hello,

I've been absolutely swamped with ICANN work and conf calls the past few days and unable to contribute here.  Now looking over the various interventions that have been made, I'm not quite sure what the status is of all the provisions people have supported/opposed/amended.  So FWIW just a few additional points on the original.

On Jan 27, 2010, at 5:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm 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.
> 
> Many thanks.
> 
> 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 such as the ITU.

I think this is a sufficient and not overly aggressive way to deal with the ITU issue.  I see posts today calling for bolder opposition to more of an ITU role; why would the above sentence not be enough?
> 
> 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.

Personally I could do without calling the distribution 'slanted' inter alia because one of the big issues is lack of government engagement, and this after all is the UN.  And despite the numbers, aren't the nongovernmentals pretty able to affect the agenda as is?  If MAG is at all like WGIG, I suspect many governmentals are relatively quiet and the energy is elsewhere.  So is it necessary and smart to say this when we're asking the governments to renew the IGF?
> 
> 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 agree with those who say this reads like sour grapes and is not appropriate for this particular statement's purpose.  I'd lose the second sentence.
> 
> 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.  

Agree with those who suggest cutting this

> 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.

As happy as I would be to have human rights and development set as overarching themes, I'd think this should be argued for in a separate, more developed statement, rather than in a meta-assessment of IGF renewal.
> 
> 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).  

Could someone explain to me what we might mean here?  What's tangible, if we concede that recommendations, declarations or statements won't fly, and how would the IGF "improve its orientation" toward them?  If we support Wolfgang's "messages" or something else it'd be good to say that, but as is this sentence seems a bit vague.

> 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

more of 

> an intersessional work program,

—beyond open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national/regional meetings—

> 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.

I take the point of people who say there's stuff now so the sentence reads off.  But what there is now is insufficient.
> 
> 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.

I would rather we didn't privilege MAGers and make "outsiders" a residual category that'd have to beg for slots.  Can't we just say there should be WGs comprising people chosen from the stakeholder communities involved that would do xyz (more detail, make it a real proposal)?
> 
> 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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100128/1d7ac84c/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