[governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental

[Ian Peter]

I agree with Milton here. IGC represents civil society in this forum far
more so than any other party, has global spread and interests, and
accommodates the divergence of global opinions that civil society has on
these issues. If there is the concept of one body to represent civil
society, IGC is the forerunner and I wouldn't know who would come second.

And somewhat cheekily, let me say that IGC is more representative of civil
society than, say, ICC is of the overall global business community, ISOC of
the technical community, and most governments are of their citizens. All of
these bodies have substantial weaknesses when it comes to consultation and
most go nowhere near as far as IGC does in seeking to hear and accommodate
divergent opinions.

However if IGF continues another five years, it is worth raising the
questions of a small secretariat for IGC and also formal UN accreditation.
They might be worth looking at!

Ian Peter


> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:04:40 -0400
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: RE: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is not the
>> global representative of civil society in the field of Internet
>> governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really
>> good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose different
>> avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to suggest new
>> ways of selecting members, we need to take into consideration that the
>> IGC is not and will not be the center of the civil society world.
> 
> I don't agree. IGC is the closest thing there is to a global nexus for civil
> society discussion of IG. If the Secretariat or UN were to ratify it as the
> basis for selection, then many others would join it. Whatever the flaws and
> limitations of IGC, it is much more transparent and open a space for CS than
> people sidling up to their governments or businesses behind the scenes and
> asking them to be appointed to "represent" CS.
> 
> The truth of my assertion can stand up to a very simple test: name ONE other
> organization or process that is superior to IGC in any important respect:
> embedded knowledge of IGF and its processes; more active participation by CS
> people involved in IG; linkages to WSIS and its resolutions and processes.
> Name one. 
> 
> A nominating committee? Don't make me laugh. Appointed by whom? Using what
> process? 
> Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate
> themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process.
> 
> --MM
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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