<div dir="ltr">Thanks parminder for your opinion. <br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/9/24 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Hi Byoungil<br>
<br>
I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this
Conference on Cyberspace...<br>
<br>
This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London
Cyber conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to
Seoul....<br>
<br>
One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because
of any China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has
been. That is how it was designed, and I can assure you that China
and Russia were not among the chief designers. <br>
<br></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I know. The mention of China/Russia was not my word, but the excuse of Participatory Secretariat for not so inclusive of civil society. The chief office of Preparatory Secretariat told that they were cooperating with UK, US and Hungary for designing the conference, though there were not any official organizing committee. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">
Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global
IG; it is a very important one.<br>
<br></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I see. I'd like to hear more about their thoughts from Best Bits members. </div><div>And if we think it is very important, I wonder why Best Bits has no action about it, at least publishing statement. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Best , </div><div>Oh Byoungil </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">
This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces
are where big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the
show, a largely managed show for kids, for all those who would
otherwise make noises - yes, you got it, a large pat of it, civil
society.....<br>
<br>
Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this
series of cyber conferences is where part co-optation is sought
from the outside - from some more powerful countries outside the
'inner club' , may be one or two very power non-gov actor too....
But still a strictly controlled space (as you found out) , of
selective co-optation. In these spaces, the wannabes,
euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a peek in,
only if they behave they could be included into bilateral and
pluri-lateral arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and
principles developed in deep secret closed spaces are sought to be
aired a bit, with an attempt to expand their legitimacy. (You will
find out as you see the conference outcome documents.) <br>
<br>
Of course, there is no business </font><font face="Verdana">here
</font><font face="Verdana">of the pesky civil society kinds . They
are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an
co-optation.... They have their agreed play space at the IGF
where, </font><font face="Verdana">in less than 2 weeks after
this key global IG meeting</font><font face="Verdana">,
multistakeholderism will again be celebrated by the same parties
holding this conference as strictly for 'adults only'. <br>
<br>
Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in
plain words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at
least as much as we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally,
these latter sites seem to be also the ones that the most dominant
global IG powers would want civil society to be stay bogged down
with.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></font><div><div class="h5">
<div>On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM,
Byoung-il Oh wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi, <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will
be held in Seoul on Oct. 17-18. </div>
<div><a href="http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do" target="_blank">http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory
Secretariat of the conference to inquire to him the progress
of the conference. At that time, the detailed agenda and
panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I inquired
what would the output of the conference and how civil society
could participate in the process. The answer was that they
expected to produce chair's summary plus as the output, but
needed more discussion on what could be the 'plus'. </div>
<div>As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop
would be held. <a href="http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html" target="_blank">http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, they didn't give definite answer to the question
of how the result of pre-workshop would be linked to the
output of the conference, how civil society could participate
in the process and give opinions to draft the output. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be
for making concrete policy through substantial discussions of
multi-stakeholders, but just cosmetic diplomatic events.
Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is operated under the
Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication authority. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself
thought much of the value of open and multi-stakeholder
process, but they had to consider the position of the
countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like
multistakeholderism. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea,
invited a staff of Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our
public forum last June, but we couldn't hear nothing new from
him. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise
that anyone from civil society could not invited as a panel. <a href="http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html" target="_blank">http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html</a></div>
<div>Moreover, I found that they even restricted the
participation of the public. It was a closed conference! When
I tried to register in the conference, I had to request PIN
first in the <a href="http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/" target="_blank">http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/</a>,
but I couldn't receive a PIN. So I called to the secretariat
and ask why. They said that PIN would be given to the invited
person. In the case of who were not invited, preparatory
secretariat will examine the person who requested to
particiapte and dicide whether to allow participation or not.
I have no idea this was the conventional practice in the
former cyberspace conference. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference,
the importance of the conference in the context of global
internet governance. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best Regards,</div>
<div>Oh Byoungil </div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<a href="http://www.jinbo.net/support/" target="_blank"><img></a>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><a href="http://www.jinbo.net/support/" target="_blank"><img src="http://blog.jinbo.net/attach/3778/1166155042.png"></a> <br>
</div></div>