[governance] IISD comment on the draft

[Lee W McKnight]

Agreed (in my individual capacity  : ).

No need of exclusivity and no chance of that working anyway. 

IGC can just say it is preparing to make recommendations via a nomcom and is encouraging other civil society orgs to do so as well.

Lee


________________________________________
From: Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:11 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IISD comment on the draft

Hi all

My comment (not an official APC position):

I think exclusivity is not a good idea. The IGC is a legitimate source of recommendations for CS representatives. It has established procedures for coming up with names and I think it is important that we strengthen this legitimacy.

If we try to propose that it is the sole nominator of CS representatives we run the risk of being seen as making a claim of being representative, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of limiting opportunity for other CS bodies and processes.

For example, there are regional CS spaces that have had their own consultative processes for coming up with names. Should they then channel their names through an IGC process?

APC has around 50 member organisations. We have internal consultative processes when coming up with candidates... usually driven also by which sub-regions are most interested or active, depending on the issue.  It is important for us to be able to propose those names as APC. We also work closely with groups outside of APC who are active in, for example, gender justice. We have been working hard for years to get the women's movement to be more involved in internet governance issues. One way in which we try to do this is to encourage them to nominate people for working groups.

I would like to see groups like IISD, and the community informatics sector (Michael Gurstein's network), and some of the mainstream human rights people we are trying to draw into IG, nominate candidates in their own names as civil society oganisations or networks.

The difficulty with channeling all these potential candidates through the IGC is that they are often not known to the IGC.

The IGC community, like most communities, tend to identify people that are active in the IGF space. This is appropriate. But limiting potential CS voices in working groups etc. to this community could have the effect of CS involvement in internet governance issues even narrower than it already is. Personally I think we want to have more CS actors involved from a wider range of countries and thematic areas.

Part of us sending a message to governments and international organisations that CS is in this space to stay, is to widen engagement from organised civil society.

Anriette

PS Agree with Meryem on CONGO. I am arguing simply for channels for nomination of CS reps not being exclusive.


  On 07/10/10 10:45, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
Dear all,

I agree with part of what Heather said, in summary that IGC cannot claim to represent neither the whole CS @ IGF, nor, a fortiori, the whole CS in general.
However, one should take into account the fact that the IGC, while being far from perfect - and, as someone who raised the point many times, I'm very comfortable saying so - is not simply one CSO like any other @ IGF. To start with, it includes people (and NGO representatives) with different views on IG, and in that sense it is very different from one single NGO with identified views and objectives.

CONGO is not an option, at least not without a serious discussion. Not only because of the reasons Lee provided (participation of individuals as well), but also because this would mean a change in the IGC, as well as the IGF functioning and especially the MAG's role. I don't know if this option was discussed inside the MAG already, but I really see this suggestion would constitute a radical political turn, which objectives would need to be clarified and discussed. But not now, we have to finalize the document first.

What we need to discuss is the possibility to set up a kind of "CS plenary", like we had during WSIS (and that worked pretty well), where all individuals, NGOs, other kind of CSO groups, and maybe their grouping into thematic caucuses can interact. But this, again, is a long term discussion, and our priority now is to finalize the document.

As for now, my opinion is that, following Jeremy's proposal below, we might change the wordings so that the document takes into account Heather's concern (which are very much valid) and at the same time doesn't radically downsize IGC feature, role and achievements to that of any NGO or CSO. Above all, the document shouldn't come at this step with any alternative, like CONGO or any other. There is no need to hurry in this document with a definitive architecture for CS representation at IGF. Let's be cautious here, let's leave the door open, while asking for some change.

Best,
Meryem

Le 7 oct. 10 à 05:20, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :

On 06/10/2010, at 11:58 PM, 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.

It was in anticipation of concerns such as yours that I worded it "could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select" rather than just "could select".  I consider that this is a fair statement of an appropriate role for the IGC within a potentially broader civil society coalition, in that we have much greater expertise and interest in IG issues than >90% of the NGOs who are active in CONGO.  But, please suggest specific wording that would further clarify the IGC's role.

--
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.






--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org>

____________________________________________________________
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