[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update [Workin Methods]

Fri Mar 15 07:33:50 EDT 2013

Hi all.. I am completelyswamped with work.. so this is quick.

1) I am not against the idea of setting up a 'joint mechanism' of some
kind for CS to do selections, but at the same time I think we would not
being too bureaucratic.

2) As for other non-governmental groups and how they identify their
representatives, I would suggest we ask for transparency and leave it at
that. We know that our own processes are imperfect and I don't think
that finger pointing at any other group will help. Not to mention that
there is a lot of room for improvement in how governments select their
representatives. And they are SUCH AN IMPORTANT stakeholder group. If we
are going to start reviewingselection processes why only look at non-gov
stakeholders.

3) I personally believe that the technical community is an important
stakeholder group in IG that does deserve recognition and
representation. I would agree that no one body should dominate how
representation is identified, but that also applies to CS and Business
and it is indeed something thatIGC should support.

4) My concern (and I wrote about this at length during the early stages
of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements) is that CS had to share our slots
with the academic community. I know this is controversial, and in Paris
some academic CSparticipants challenged me on my position. I respect
that some of the most active and dynamic individuals in the IG CS space
are academics, but:

- CS is so diversethat we should be having as manyslots as possible for
CS organisations to widen representationand ideas
- The non-technical academic input into IG is similarly so vital
(particularly in thinking of social impacts of the internet in the
future) that it should be recognised as a stakeholder group in its own
right.

My view has always been therefore, even if it takes a General Assembly
resolution, that either (a) CS are given more slots than other
non-governmental stakeholder groups in recognition of the fact that we
include non-tech academics or (b) that the non-tech academic community
be recognised as an important stakeholder group in its own right.

Anriette

On 15/03/2013 13:10, Baudouin Schombe wrote:
> I think   Nnenna proposal deserves to be taken into account. we should
> not reinvent the wheel but improve the approach that was positive at a
> time given.
>
> Baudouin
>
> 2013/3/15, Nnenna <nne75 at yahoo.com>:
>> Quoting Norbert:
>>
>>  >
>> Civil society definitely needs to do an important bit of homework in
>> this area.
>>
>> Thomas Lowenhaupt suggested a while back to set up some kind of joint
>> board of the various leading civil society meta-organizations which
>> would be able to carry out such selection tasks in a way that would
>> avoid the problem of IGC running a full-fledged NomCom process only to
>> have the result partly or (as happened in the case of the CSTD WG)
>> almost totally ignored at the next step of the selection process.
>>
>> I would suggest that it is time to revisit this idea, and also think
>> about whether there are other possible solutions to this problem.
>>
>>
>> In the beginning days of WSIS PrepComs, I recall we had a "Working Methods"
>> caucus/group.
>>
>> That was 10 years ago, and yes, a long time.  But for those who are
>> interested in process..
>>
>> This may  be a good time to do this again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants
>> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development
>> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820
>> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org
>> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org.
>> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update
>>
>> Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I quote below
>>> the relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on
>>> Improvements to the IGF.
>>>
>>> (quote begins)
>> [..]
>>>         (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the
>>> process that works best for their own culture and methods of
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130315/0e8d57b4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t