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

Fri Jan 29 06:05:33 EST 2010

Hello Jeremy

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> 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).
>

'Secretariat under contract with UNDESA' is very specific. The suggestion
that IGF continues with a UN mandate with greater independence could be a
broader suggestion leaving it open for various possible ways of achieving
that.

> We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN
> body such as the ITU.
>

You have not taken into account some of the comments about making this
statement emphatic. Why is this statement still light and gentle? Is it
difficult for you to make this statement any stronger for any reason?

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.
>

What is missing is a bit of praise for the Secreatariat and the MAG for all
that they have done. In the absence of positive comments, if the IGC merely
points out what is missing ( or what is wrong with the working of the MAG)
and somewhere else express doubts about the extension of the mandate, the
net effect would be negative.

>
> 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).
>

Why is there even a reference to the uncertainty here?

>  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.
>

What is the reason for this apprehension - that the program for the Vilinius
meeting would permanently be 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.
>

Can we also make a beginning here on a suggestion to improve the
constitution of the WSIS?  I have quoted form an earlier message with
comments separately.

>
> 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.
>
> --
>
> *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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100129/16e5452a/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