[governance] IISD comment on the draft

[Fouad Bajwa]

Rightly phrased by Jeanette. Thank you.

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Heather's comments. If it is our goal to broaden civil society
> participation in the IGF and its preparatory structures, the caucus should
> not aim to form the gateway to bodies such as the MAG. Rather it should
> delegate selection or recruitment processes to an independent organization
> with a broader membership which covers a more diverse set of issues. The IGC
> is not well known enough beyond its rather narrow home turf. CoNGO might be
> a good candidate for such a role?
>
> jeanette
>
> On 06.10.2010 17:58, Heather Creech wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
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