[governance] IISD comment on the draft

[Lee W McKnight]

I beg to differ with Fouad, Heather, and Jeanette.

Certainly CONGO is a fine group to be involved, and perhaps Jeremy's phrasing was unartful.

But re individual vs institutional representation - I don;t think we should just assume no direct representation or participation.

When CSISAC - the OECD Civil Society Information Society Advisory Committee - was being set up, we had similar debates.

And we had to push hard to re-open the door for individuals being permitted to be involved at all, vs traditional practices of institutions-only. Of course larger cs orgs do most of heavy lifting, but the principle that individuals are not cut out from participating was preserved.

If carried over to IGC context itself in my opinion that would suck most of the life out of our beast. 

So just saying 'we cs organizations have always done this and are the only ones accredited by UN and IGC is a virtual org with only very lightweight rules and structures' - which we still spend too much time arguing about by the way - does not mean reversion to standard practice is right way to go. In fact just the opposite, the lightweight virtual thing can be more effective because it spans and does not directly threaten other cs orgs.

I suggest phrasing might be more like 'IGF offers to assist; blah blah;' not that we propose to manage or claim to represent all possible cs interests in ig. But - we are the ig caucus of cs, which is hard enough to manage as Ginger and Jeremy and predecessors would confirm.

And for me, keeping space for individuals to participate, as in IETF or IEEE, or IGC, is important, and we shouldn't just step aside.  Maybe CONGO and IGC, or facilitated by igc, or something along those lines.

We don't overstep our role, but we also don;t just assume traditional practice makes sense in new context.

Lee
_______________________________________ 
From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 7:43 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Heather Creech
Subject: Re: [governance] IISD comment on the draft

I will have to agree with Heather's comments as it is something that
has also been discussed in the open consultations and MAG meetings
that we as IGC are itself a Civil Society stakeholder and do not
represent all of Civil Society that includes various actors in various
individual, organizational, groups, communities and structures.

The IGC cannot act as the global gateway for all CS of the world that
is interested to participate in the IGF process or is already doing so
and that fact will continue to remain. I don't this might even be
applicable and this statement does require a revisit. Within the UN
process there are existing bodies that provide consultative status to
CS with the UN and IGC cannot take that role other than attempt to
become a member of and would require IGC to have a registered
organization status with a yearly financial audited budget to join and
remain in consultative status upon approval of the UNNGLS/UNDESA etc.
This would still keep IGC as a member of the CONGO/Consultative Status
and equal with other CS and not give IGF the sole responsibility of CS
inclusion.

IGC should remain clear in its role and what it states in its statement.


On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Heather Creech <hcreech at iisd.ca> 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
____________________________________________________________
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