[governance] IISD comment on the draft

[Heather Creech]

I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which falls under question 2.  This concerns the relationship between the IGC, civil society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil society in general.



The draft suggests that:  "With its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints."  It adds that this could also be achieved through an independent NomCom process.



The IGC could not take on a representative role of this kind in its present form, and should not seek to do so (although a NomCom process may be feasible).  Three main reasons:



a. The IGC charter requires members to be individuals, acting in a personal capacity, and does not enable organisational participation.  In the world at large, including every other area of public policy which is affected by the internet, civil society engages predominantly through organisations (development agencies, rights agencies, environmental agencies, consumer bodies, faith groups, trades unions, women's organisations etc.).  While it is certainly not a problem for the IGC to require individual (and exclude organisational) participation in its own activities, this is a problem if it seeks to represent civil society in general.



b. The IGC is an actor within civil society in relation to internet governance / the IGF.  It is not civil society per se, nor can it claim to represent civil society as a whole, either within the internet community or (even more so) beyond.  There are many civil society participants in IG and in the IGF who do not participate in the IGC.  There are many civil society actors (individuals and organisations) whose activities/work/lives are greatly impacted by the internet that do not participate in IG or the IGF.    They cannot be represented by the IGC unless they choose to be so represented - and they may not be in a position to make that choice.



c) The IGC should not seek to use some kind of institutional status within the IGF as a way of leveraging non-members into membership of the IGC.   The participation of civil society actors in UN or multistakeholder processes (and the MAG is both) should not be contingent on or routed through a specific membership body (in this case the IGC).  (To make an analogy: would IGC members accept that their engagement with, say, human rights or environmental issues must be contingent on participation in Human Rights Watch or IISD?)



In short, the IGC should continue to do what it does well, which is to act as the voice of those who choose to be its members.  It should not seek to speak for those who are not part of it or to act as a gateway for their participation in a multistakeholder process such as the selection of the MAG.  An independent NomCom process which engaged with civil society in general may be worth exploring.  However, for the reasons given above, this also should not be a function of the IGC but would need to engage a much wider range of civil society participation.


Heather Creech
Director, Global Connectivity
IISD
+12049587735

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101006/70fbb380/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