[governance] Re: Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC

[Paul Lehto]

The rest of the results quote below as started in this thread, stated:

> Of these, seven YES + thematic working groups votes, and one YES vote, were
> from non-members and have to be disregarded.

A question arises if this was "not a 'vote'" but rather a "consensus"
call.  Why were votes excluded from tallies on account of not being on
the recently published membership list (which was derived solely from
the actual voters on the recent Charter vote) if this is not a vote of
members but simply a consensus of the IGC list?

The actual text being voted on recites at the bottom what appears to
be the full number of listserv participants (about 400) to enhance the
credibility of IGC consensus statements (one assumes) and yet the IGC
does not allow a substantial section of the 400 to vote on the
consensus.  The larger the number of people from whom a concensus is
reached the stronger the resulting statement of consensus is, so there
appears to be a result here that is not in the best interests of the
IGC.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 1/31/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 31/01/2010, at 3:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger.
>> However, as indication of participation, my count says that after removing
>> duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES +
>> thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working
>> groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention.
>
> The coordinators have decided that a rough consensus now exists in favour of
> the IGC statement in the form below (ie. YES + thematic working groups).  To
> clarify Deirdre's question on list, this is not a case where a vote has been
> taken.  The "voting" is just a means of establishing the degree of consensus
> that exists.
>
> Also thanks Deirdre for pulling me up on talking in the singular first
> person about announcing the result - whilst Ginger had left the settling of
> this statement for me, in the end it is certainly a joint endeavour (and
> more than that, an endeavour of the entire IGC).
>
> Thanks to Parminder for expounding on the question of whether the views of
> those who had joined the list since the last election would be taken into
> account in assessing the consensus.  As it happens, there is a current
> proposal to investigate revising the IGC charter.  This is a point on which
> such a revision would be beneficial.  We will revisit this in the coming
> weeks.
>
> The statement below will be sent to the Secretariat shortly.
>
> 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 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.
>
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
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