IRIS Actions / SMSI / Human Rights / List

[Précédent par date] [Index par date] [Suivant by date] [Précédent par thème] [Index par thème] [Suivant par thème]
[Previous by date] [Index by date] [Next by date] [Previous by thread] [Index by thread] [Next by thread]

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



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