AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES

[William Drake]

Wolfgang is right, it's a process not an institution.

So does that make the options

YES + thematic working groups + process?
YES
NO

or

YES + thematic working groups + process?
YES + thematic working groups 
YES + process?
YES
NO
 
or...

Getting a bit complex, why not just hold off for a day on the consensus call and get this right?

I still think we should find a way to accommodate Parminder's concerns if possible.

BD

On Jan 29, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> Jeremy
> 
> thanks. Here is my YES. I would - like Bill - keep the idea of (interessional) thematic meetings.
> 
> BTW (but this goes beyond the statement and should not delay the delivery of this statement on February, 9, 2010) we qualify in this statement the IGF as an "institution". My question is whether this is correct and this is what we want to have. In Tunis we gave an interpretation that the IGF is a "process" with "one highlight per year" (the annual IGF) but a lot of work in between (which is now the case with national and regional IGFs and in the future possibly with more structured IGF Dynamic Coalition activities, thematic meetings, open consultations etc.). The undeerstanding of "process" instead of "institution" helped us to avoid the risk that the IGF becomes victim of a "burocratization" which normally (and unavidably) comes with the launch of an "institutuion". The "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation Mechanism" avoided such a burocratization so far. I understand (and agree) that flexibility (the "process") works only if there is a certain stability (a minimum of "institution") at the ground. However lets be very careful in using words. One option could be also to speak about the IGF Network or the IGF Mechanism oran "enhanced process"which would make clear that we do not want to have a new intergovernmental United Nations for the Internet (with some non-governmental stakeholders in an advisory capacity).
> 
> Wolfgang    
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Gesendet: Fr 29.01.2010 08:51
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO
> 
> 
> 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 <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

***********************************************************
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
***********************************************************


____________________________________________________________
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