[governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO

Sat Jan 30 07:52:32 EST 2010

Yes + thematic working groups

----- Original Message -----
Expéditeur: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
à: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sujet: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES +
thematic working groups, YES or NO
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:32:34 +0800

> If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next
> open consultation meeting, please vote now.  At present
> the statement might not pass the consensus call - not
> because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but
> because the total number of responses is still relatively
> low.
>
> Please also remember that we have another thread in which
> to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far
> there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a
> theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet".
>
> Here once again is the statement on which we have a
> consensus call.  Everyone who has voted YES so far has
> been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards
> thematic working groups - none have yet changed their
> vote.
>
> Please vote:
>
> YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as
> shown here YES to accept the statement without the
> [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.
>
> --
> 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. Don't print this
> email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> [Pièce jointe: message-footer.txt]
____________________________________________________________
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