Fwd: [cs-coord] Fw: IGF Retreat Submission from CSCG

[Robin Gross]

The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) contribution to the IGF retreat planning discussion is below.

Best,
Robin

> 
> 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 .
> 
> ______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160629/9f40ed9e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RecommendationsforIGFPlanningWorkshop.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 139983 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160629/9f40ed9e/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160629/9f40ed9e/attachment-0001.htm>