AW: [governance] IISD comment on the draft

Thu Oct 7 06:53:00 EDT 2010

Hi all

CONGO was well involved in WSIS because it was Renata who took the burden. I missed CONGO in recent WSIS and IGF activities. It would be good to have someone like Renata back in the drivers seat. But as long as no new Renata is there, I would have some reservations. 

However, I agree that we have to go beyond IGC. But the involved other groups have to have a clear understanding of IG and linkage to constitutencies active in this field. What we have so far is the ALAC/ALSs structures under ICANN, the CISAC under OECD and, in a broader sense, WSIS accredited NGOs which have expressed an interest in IG. It needs obviously some coordination. 

One way out could be - remember the WSIS CS Structures - thast we propose under a renewed IGF/MAG  a "Civil Society Internet Governance Coordination Group" (CS-IGCG) which would be open for all kind of CS IG networks. The IGC would be certainly a key driver wirthin the CS-IGCG. And it would be a signal that the IGC hos no intention to monopolize it. 

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Gesendet: Mi 06.10.2010 22:33
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Heather Creech
Betreff: Re: [governance] IISD comment on the draft

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

____________________________________________________________
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