Re: [hr-wsis] SV: General motivation to send nominees to the IGF

[Meryem Marzouki <marzouki@ras.eu.org>]

Hi Rikke and all,

Le 16 avr. 06 à 16:08, Rikke Frank Joergensen a écrit :

> re. your concerns below, I would propose that we turn them into  
> some concrete recommendations, i.e.

Of course I agree to make concrete recommendations. But it's not only  
a question on how to present things. During the IGF consultation  
meeting of February, the question of setting up a "bureau" to prepare  
IGF meetings (and most of IGF activities, in fact) was discussed.

Almost all CS people spoke against a "bureau" like during WSIS  
phases, and rather in favor of a lighter structure, both in terms of  
amount of members and in terms of capacity. This was to avoid, among  
others, the issue of "representativity", and, I assume, based on the  
bad experience with the WSIS CSB.

Now we have a MAG, which will certainly be a bureau.

First, by its size: about 40 members: we know that governments are  
used to ask for 15, i.e. 3 from each 5 UN regions, the rest being CS,  
private sector and a new category, following strong lobbying from  
ISOC and the like, made up of "members of the academic and technical  
communities".

Second, by the fuzziness of its definition. It will "assist him [UN  
SG] in this task" and its members will be "representing governments,  
private sector and civil society and include members of the academic  
and technical communities. The members of the group will be chosen in  
their personal capacity."
What does that mean ? Who they are representing, apart from  
themselves ? To whom they would be accountable or, at the minimum,  
report ? They are supposed to (and would, I assume) act as "experts",  
"consultants", etc. They  will certainly do their best, but, as  
individuals acting in their own capacity (and "chosen in their  
personal capacity"), they are, in the end, representing only  
themselves, and accountable to no one. Structures, and specially  
public structures, like UN structures, shouldn't facilitate this. The  
MAG, with its (lack of) "definition", facilitates and encourages  
this. The rest of the MAG will be governments and private sector, who  
both know what they want. How CS could have any voice in this if not  
a minimum structured ?

As soon as the MAG has been announced, everyone in CS has run for  
nomination, without any questioning or even simply discussing what it  
means.

It seems that all that we achieved, with difficulty, during 4 years  
of WSIS, i.e. (more or less) structuring CS @ WSIS, is now lost or  
discarded. 4 years after, CS (whatever it means) has entirely forgot  
about any coalition/grouping, and is advancing as individual  
organizations in the best case, if not as individuals.

Since we decided to remain in the process _as a caucus_, i.e. as a  
more or less structured coalition of organizations (if not  
structured, at least sharing common principles and common  
objectives), I think we have to firmly raise this issue, to the IGF  
as well as to the other components of CS @ WSIS.

If you look at the list of nominees to the IGC nomcom (http:// 
www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml), you will find very few CS @ WSIS  
coalitions as nominators: HR caucus, Privacy and Security WG, ACSIS  
(African CS). Others are individual NGOs/associations, or projects,  
or individual persons. And if the Internet governance caucus may seem  
a major CS @ WSIS coalition, since it organizes this nomcom and will  
then recommend the chosen persons to the IGF, this is not exactly the  
case: if this nomcom has been set up, and if the internet governance  
caucus has not made, as a coalition, any substantive contribution,  
this is indeed because it has always been difficult to agree on  
anything among the internet governance caucus, since no common  
principle and no common objective is shared among its members: too  
large, too diverse, etc.

Yes, the HR caucus has recommended candidates to the MAG. But this  
doesn't prevent to raise the issue I've stated above - if you agree  
and share these concerns, of course, both to the IGF and to the other  
CS components.

I hope this has helped to clarify my concerns.
Last thing: tomorrow April 17, I'll be almost all day off-line, so I  
couldn't draft anything before April 18.
Best,
Meryem

> unclear MAG mandate -> underline how the Caucus interprete the  
> mandate, and stress the need to have the mandate spelled out more  
> specifically asap
>
> MAG members serve in individual capacity: pls explain your concern  
> here, meryem, i am not sure i understand your right
>
> Criterias -> stress the need to make public the criteria for  
> choosing MAG members
>
> Language -> stress the need to make information at least bilingual.
>
> Funding -> as i understand it from karen, there will be funding for  
> developing countries only. -> stress the need to 1) have clear  
> information on this, 2) the problem it raises for many candidates  
> especially from smaller organisations.
>
> I will be happy to help with drafting,
>
> best
> rikke
>
>
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:Meryem.Marzouki@iris.sgdg.org]
> Sendt: to 13-04-2006 20:04
> Til: hr-wsis@iris.sgdg.org
> Emne: [hr-wsis] General motivation to send nominees to the IGF
>
> Hi all,
>
> As I previously said, the now 3 HR caucus nominees information will
> also be sent directly to the IGF secretariat on April 18.
> This would be accompanied by a general statement of motivations from
> the HR caucus. I'd also like to tell them what we (I, for the moment)
> think of this process:
> - fuzziness of the MAG definition
> - specification that the MAG members are supposed to participate in
> their individual capacities while the IGF will take a given (unknown)
> number from each stakeholder (this is a major inconsistency for me,
> which would lead to lack of transparency and accountability, and
> dilution of responsibilities. It's actually the main reason why I
> declined any candidacy for participation to the MAG)
> - Total opacity w.r.t. to the criteria used to choose the members of
> the MAG
> - The fact that it is unacceptable that everything is done in English
> (see www.intgovforum.gov), leaving aside non English speakers
> - No information on funding to participate to the MAG (travel etc.),
> and one can deduce there is no funding, again leaving aside those who
> cannot find funding, specially candidates from the South, and small
> organizations in general;
>
> Any comment/other arguments, and help in drafting this statement,
> would be most welcome.
>
> Meryem
>
> --
> Working List of the WSIS Human Rights Caucus
> Web site : http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis
> Public Archives: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list
> To post a message to the list, send an email to: hr-wsis@iris.sgdg.org
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, send an email to:  
> Meryem.Marzouki@iris.sgdg.org
>
>
> --
> Working List of the WSIS Human Rights Caucus
> Web site : http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis
> Public Archives: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list
> To post a message to the list, send an email to: hr-wsis@iris.sgdg.org
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, send an email to:  
> Meryem.Marzouki@iris.sgdg.org