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

[Parminder]

a mistyping which changes the meaning, so I am resending the concerned 
part...

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 when they agree to the whole lot, 
rather than say yes + thematic working groups.

Parminder wrote:
> 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/e7c58ce4/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