[governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond

[Parminder]

Any comment in an active political process only has meaning within 
specific context in which it is presented...

the following part of the statement,

"The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the 
present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the 
preparation of IGF meetings."

therefore, to me, just means that we look to the new experiment of no 
MAG meetings post feb, or in subsequent years, perhaps even ever, with 
hopeful anticipation.... I think that is a strange view to project for a 
group  which put in so much effort in trying to shape IGF as a 
purposeful body in the global Internet policies landscape.

Even otherwise the statement is too general and is able to make no 
specific point at all in any of the substantive issues that face the 
open consultations

 - review of IGF at Sharm
 - Review of IGF in general, structural changes etc (time to catch the 
ear of gov reps who will be there and are going to do the bulk of the 
work from now on) (and if we do make a comment as the above quoted, we 
are completely off what we have always held and been trying to take forward)
 - Agenda for IGF, Vilinius (remember, as per present indications it 
will be decided in Feb itself)
 
Our statements do always have general points, but still attempt to make 
2-3 clear points specific to the issues at hand, which alone get really 
noticed. We need to have some such points in the present statement too

As to why I had not contributed earlier, I think I kept doing my best 
regarding one of the most important issues that was at hand, and could 
only do that many postings. Also, a good part of substantive stuff had 
got removed in the last day or two.

So, it is a NO.

Very, unfortunate, that I have to say so.

Parminder


Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put 
> forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting.  Please 
> reply NO if you do not agree.  Please do not suggest further changes, 
> unless they are typographical or grammatical.  Responses will be 
> received for 48 hours from the time of this message, following which 
> Ginger and I will assess whether a rough consensus exists.  That 
> decision will be subject to appeal.  Thank you!
>
> *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.  When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is 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.
>
> 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.  Many also 
> believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the 
> selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to 
> be made 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.  We understand that the MAG might 
> not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the 
> IGF's future need not preclude that).  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 is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the 
> present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the 
> preparation of IGF meetings.
>
> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards 
> the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to 
> "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements 
> (though many of our members would also support outputs of these 
> stronger kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be 
> taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external 
> institutions through appropriate mechanisms.
>
> Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's 
> intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open 
> consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely 
> connected national and regional meetings.  In particular, there should 
> be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and 
> meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would 
> require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and 
> meetings, 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.  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, 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 
> <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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100129/39d9ed7f/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