[governance] Fw: IGF Retreat Submission from CSCG
José Félix Arias Ynche
jaryn56 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 29 11:54:09 EDT 2016
alguna vez hable sobre la sección 20, hoy me siento que tuve razón,
siento que hay intereses para que esta propuesta no se lleve a cabo:
Sección 20 (a) Los tres grupos de actores no gubernamentales debería
proponer listas de candidatos que deben ser equilibrados, incluso en
términos de la distribución de género y en reflejar la diversidad de
la distribución geográfica.
Esto permitirá una amplia gama de diversidad dentro del MAG, en
especial aquellos grupos que han sido poco representados en el MAG, y
será lo suficientemente grande como para proporcionar una cierta
flexibilidad al seleccionar los miembros del MAG;
Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche
Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo Sostenible
2016-06-29 5:32 GMT-05:00 Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
> @Arsene. Oh so sorry for mentioning Africa. Mistake please. Wanted to say
> Nigeria with different states and languages as well as diversity but can't
> compare her with India.
>
> Hope you understand !
>
> 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 "
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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