[governance] Fw: IGF Retreat Submission from CSCG
srajukanumuri
srajukanumuri at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 08:44:36 EDT 2016
Dear Sir's
Thanks for your feed back. If we take India we can think of as continent as
population reaching 1.2 billion. A typical small state
we can population minimum 20 million people and max 200 million. Most of
people talk different languages.
The rich poor divide even in cities like mumbia , new delhi soft ware and
technology hubs we can see. with mobile penetration
reached every villager ( around 500,000 villages ) and most of them are
uneducated but they use mobiles and browse Internet
Each state and each area will have different societies , different cultures
different languages ) .
on Average India requires at least minimum 15 languages translations to
reach 29 states , 7 union territories people for better internet
governance and also better open internet to make next 400 million to be
part of main stream and to make ISOC and other stake holders
plans Ideas thoughts to connect next 2.4 billion people who are middle
class and un educated.
As part of our over efforts and over all plans if we make a model to
include all stake holders we can have one of greatest policy on internet
governance and also save people form cyber attacks cyber thefts , human
rights freedom of speech. and betterr lively hood
better education.
Most of Present Indian population is youth. Based on population economic
back ground and number of cultures living etc if we make
representation ( multi stake holders ) we can meet every body needs
aspirations dreams for growth and happiness.
good day to you all
kanumuri s raju
" We Connect human contacts "
" We make net to think and act "
" Survival is h-commerce -human commerce or human knowledge commerce based
on Bartering of knowledge Globally with out money as instrument "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kkkrkstrust <http://kkrkstrust.wordpress.com> - Social and community
empowerment and support services
<http://www.ourgreenindia.com>
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) <
arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Dear Ian,
> Thanks for sharing with the list.
>
> Dear Srajukanumuri,
> Thanks for sharing your concern and to give a picture of the need in a
> country like India. I am not sure I clearly understand your concern and
> would appreciate you elaborate more so that we can help adress it better.
> Hope Ian or any other person will be able to chim in and provide inputs or
> clarification.
>
> Dear Akinremi,
> Is Africa a country? Can we compare the case of a single country like
> India (considering you referred to it) to a whole continent like Africa?
> Please do elaborate as well to move the debate.
>
> Thanks,
> A
>
> *------------------------------------------------------*
> *Arsène Tungali,*
> IGC Co-Coordinator,
> Co-founder & Executive Director, Rudi International
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org/>
> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/arsenebaguma> - Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/arsenebaguma> - LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/arsene-tungali/40/825/344/>
> Internet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Ambassador - ICANN Fellow - Child
> Online Protection Evangelist.
> Democratic Republic of Congo
>
>
> Le Mercredi 29 juin 2016 8h12, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
>
> So do other countries e.g Africa.
> On Jun 29, 2016 6:56 AM, "srajukanumuri" <srajukanumuri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Iani Pater sir ,
>
> thanks for your feed back. Based on your frame work big countries like
> India have different states and different governments with different type
> of
> civil society groups different type of multi stake holders and different
> type of communities with different languages they speak with different type
> socio economic issues with different type areas etc. In order to reach
> with common Internet governance forum it will become complicated and
> so many hurdles will come . Order make our efforts strong we can divide
> based on country , state region and areas of governance of model
> with all stake holder representation.
>
> Good day to you
> ksraju
>
>
> " We Connect human contacts "
> " We make net to think and act "
> " Survival is h-commerce -human commerce or human knowledge commerce
> based on Bartering of knowledge Globally with out money as instrument "
>
>
> <http://www.ourgreenindia.com/>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> wrote:
>
> Below is the text of the submission sent by CSCG to the IGF Planning
> Retreat. In accordance with our mission it concentrates heavily on
> improving processes for stakeholder selection.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> Dear IGF Secretariat,
>
> I am pleased to submit this contribution for your planning retreat on
> behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society Co-ordination Group (CSCG).
> CSCG exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and
> conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside
> bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the
> Association for Progressive Communications, Best Bits, Internet Governance
> Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN.
> Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of
> non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of
> individuals.
>
> In line with our mandate, this submission concentrates specifically on
> improving the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder
> Advisory Group (MAG).
>
> As you know, this has been the subject of some concerns with stakeholder
> groups, and we believe that these concerns should be addressed. In order to
> do this, we recommend the establishment of a small Multistakeholder Working
> Group, including representatives of Civil Society Coordination Group
> (CSCG), Internet Technical Collaboration Group (ITCG) and International
> Chamber of Commerce ( ICC/BASIS), working with UNDESA to refine procedures
> and resolve some of these difficulties. We feel sure that by working
> together we can develop procedures which improve stakeholder representation
> – and therefore the overall efficiency of the IGF. We commend this
> recommendation to you.
>
> But in the meantime, and additionally, we refer to the recommendations of
> the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by the UN
> General Assembly, which include 3 sections of relevance to this process.
> Our suggestions relating to these appear below.
>
> *Sect 20(a) The three non-governmental stakeholder groups should propose
> lists of candidates that should be balanced, including in terms of gender
> distribution and in reflecting the diversity of geographical distribution.
> This will enable a wide range of diversity within the MAG, especially those
> groups which have been underrepresented in the MAG, and will be
> sufficiently large to provide some flexibility when selecting MAG members;*
>
> In finalising representation and providing the flexibility referred to
> above, we understand that, in addition to balance within each stakeholder
> group, you wish to ensure that you achieve the best possible gender and
> geographic balance across stakeholder groups; of course we agree with this
> objective. But your process for doing this in the past has been to make
> final selections within UNDESA without further consultation with
> stakeholder groups. This can sometimes be problematic, as you cannot
> possibly be aware of the ramifications of some such choices within
> stakeholder groups.
> The way other organisations have handled this is to arrange a simultaneous
> phone hookup with representatives of stakeholder groups to discuss such
> final balance issues. You will find that we actually work quite well
> together in such circumstances, and we believe that the results will be
> more acceptable to stakeholder groups if this quick final consultation is
> included.
>
> Additionally, we believe you need to address the issue that certain
> stakeholder groups have a long history of submitting names to you dominated
> by male candidates: and that as a result civil society nominations are
> often adjusted to include more women and get better gender balance
> overall. That does nothing to address the problem of discrimination
> against women in those stakeholder groups where there is discrimination
> against women; it only creates a false perception of gender balance which
> will, if it has any effect at all, contribute to those problems not getting
> addressed. Furthermore, it makes it far more difficult for male candidates
> from civil society to be included. We suggest that you insist that each
> individual stakeholder group, and particularly governments, must address
> gender equality within their constituency.
>
> *Sect 20(b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the process
> which works best for their own culture and methods of engagement and which
> will ensure their self-management;*
>
> IGF Secretariat should not run duplicative processes for stakeholder
> nominations (such as was the case with the nominations for this IGF
> Retreat). Either a centralised process (where all candidates submit via
> IGF, and all nominations are then provided to stakeholder groups for
> assessment at the closing date), or a decentralised process, where
> stakeholder groups run their own processes (in accordance with 20(b) above)
> should be run, but not both. Duplicative processes are confusing, require
> candidates to submit twice, and results in differing sets of candidate
> groups for assessment existing.
>
> *Sect 21 a) The process of selection of MAG members should be inclusive,
> predictable, transparent and fully documented;*
>
> In respect of this, we submit:
>
> 1. More transparency is needed. We believe that, in the interests of
> transparency, names and application details of all candidates for MAG
> selection should be publicly known. Whether this should be at the close of
> applications, or at the close of assessments, needs to be discussed further
> in the light of detailed procedures. Note: This is not a privacy issue as
> long as candidates are advised beforehand of this requirement.
>
> This requirement will assist with overall assessment of candidates by
> stakeholder groups, as well as in identifying candidates who have applied
> via separate organisations. We suggest this requirement be included when
> stakeholder groups provide their own processes, and also if a more
> centralised process is run via IGF Secretariat.
> 2. We also suggest that recommendations from stakeholder groups to IGF
> Secretariat should be publicly available.
>
> 3. Stakeholder procedures for making selections should also be publicly
> available. (CSCG’s current procedures can be found at
> http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures)
>
> These recommendations are based on the best practice we have observed with
> other organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We offer
> the above suggestions in the spirit of co-operation with you, as we also
> want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we
> offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine
> procedures to ensure more acceptable, transparent and representative
> results.
> Sincerely,
> Ian Peter – Independent Chair, Internet Governance Civil Society
> Coordination Group (CSCG)
>
> *SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS*
>
> *We recommend the establishment of a small Multistakeholder Working Group,
> including representatives of Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG),
> Internet Technical Collaboration Group (ITCG) and International Chamber of
> Commerce ( ICC/BASIS), to work with UNDESA to refine procedures for MAG
> nominations and similar processes. *
>
> *We recommend a simultaneous phone hookup with representatives of
> stakeholder groups to discuss final balance issues (including overall
> gender and geographical representation).*
>
> *We recommend that you insist that each individual stakeholder group, and
> particularly governments, must address gender equality within their
> constituency.*
>
> *We recommend that IGF Secretariat should not run duplicative processes
> for stakeholder nominations (such as was the case with the nominations for
> this IGF Retreat). Either a centralised process (where all candidates
> submit via IGF, and all nominations are then provided to stakeholder groups
> for assessment at the closing date), or a decentralised process, where
> stakeholder groups run their own processes should be run, but not both.*
>
> *We recommend that in the interests of transparency, names and application
> details of all candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. This
> requirement should also be included when stakeholder groups provide their
> own processes, and also if a more centralised process is run via IGF
> Secretariat.*
>
> *Recommendations from stakeholder groups to the IGF Secretariat should be
> publicly available, as well as stakeholder procedures for making selections
> .*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20160701/d05aa701/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list