[governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please

[Parminder]

Jeremy,

While  appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, this 
is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think most 
people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree to the whole 
lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This would let to the 
erroneous impression that they do not support thematic groups... Since 
many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal of this change, I do think 
that the general feeing in the group is for keeping this in. I suggest 
you just put it in the statement, and give the option to people to vote 
yes, or yes, but minus WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds bothersome. Just 
trying to help :)

parminder .


JJeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows:
>
> * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail 
> client does not show striking out)
>
> * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if your 
> mail client does not show underlining)
>
> Please vote:
>
> *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here
> *YES* to accept the statement without underlined passage 
> *NO* to reject the statement
>
> *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.
>
> [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups 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.  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/20100129/236ef3c8/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