[governance] Fw: IGF Retreat Submission from CSCG

[Akinremi Peter Taiwo]

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20160629/7d4f145e/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