FW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers]
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Mon Feb 13 15:42:39 EST 2012
Effective governance is in large part about the perception of legitimacy.
In the context of the Internet it is clear that in order for the governance
processes (including those processes about process as the IGF to a
considerable extent is) to have legitimacy there must be participation by
the various stakeholders. Certain of the stakeholder groups notably the
private sector and the technical community as supported largely by the
private sector have a clear set of (financial) interests in effective
governance. Governments as providing the regulatory framework within which
the Internet operates clearly have set of interests in ensuring that
national regulatory (and other) priorities are reflected/accommodated within
the goverance structures.
There is also a clear public interest in Internet governance which under
other circumstances might be represented by governments but in the
particular circumstances of the Internet -- because of its rapidly changing,
somewhat technical and global reach -- is proving somewhat difficult to
channel public interest perspectives/requirements through conventional
governmental structures.
This means that the public interest (or in another way the non-commercial,
non-technical, non-regulatory interests of Internet users) needs to be
represented in Internet Governance or the process lacks legitimacy.
It is in the overall interests of the Internet and all stakeholders that
Internet Governance is perceived as legitimate (note the current issues
around the perceived illegitimacy of the ACTA process).
Thus it is in the overall interest of Internet Governance (and the Internet
Governance processes) that there is a civil society participation (the
comparable OECD processes have already moved some considerable way along the
path to the recognition of this.
The question then becomes how to ensure funding for this process. The most
appropriate and fairest way for funding such inclusion would be through
taxation however, since there is no global governance mechanism through
which such taxation might be enforced this is a major problem. However, a
few pennies from each of the domain registrations/renewals would more than
adequately fund the entire Internet Governance process including ensuring
public interest participation in the MAG/IGF etc.etc.
Such a contribution to orderly and effective Internet governance processes
should surely be of considerable interest to those most directly concerned
with ensuring an orderly and effective operation of the Internet.
As per Deidre's earlier comments and other anecdotal information it would
appear that there is already considerable support coming informally from
that quarter for CS participation in the IGF and other Internet Governance
processes. Perhaps those who have been doing this informally may wish to
take a leadership in looking to formalize this process.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:42 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers]
Robert
On Saturday 11 February 2012 07:08 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
Parminder,
I don't agree with a walk out over the lack of financial support to
participate.
I only asked for a symbolic walkout, not a boycott of the session. It would
simply have been an expression of solidarity by those who are able to make
to the meeting on their own funds with those are not able to do so. And
hopefully, the event would help raise the visibility of this issue, which
for me and many of us in the South is at the heart of multistakeholderism.
And hopefully, this would have allowed those in the WG on IGF improvements
to insist that the WG report makes the necessary provision.
The current economic situation is such that funding of any kind is hard to
obtain. Things will only get worse over the course of the next 2 years.
That is a lame excuse and we can do better than to fall prey to it. What
economic situation are you talking about? Why has this bad situation not
affected private funding for attendees? Why does it only affect public
funding? Every two months or so a large conference seems to get held in the
North on IG issues? Why doesnt the economic conditions affect this sudden
rash of IG meetings and conferences? Ensuring committed funding for MAG CS
members is what, about 30 international tickets and the cost of a few days
each of stay in a year. Even a small university and many NGOs hold a few
meetings every year which will entail such costs, what to speak of
governments and businesses. So lets be a little less patronising on this key
and central issue of global governance. NO, these 30 tickets is not the
issue. The issue is the deeper political economy equation whereby
representative global governance systems are sought to be increasingly
undermined in favour of private/ business led governance systems, where the
seats are allocated according to ones' existing power. We from the South say
a loud and clear NO to this creeping acquisition. This is the primary issue
in contention here.
And by 'seeking alternative funds' I understand one means looking for funds
provided by businesses and other institutions that have pre-committed
ideology (like all of us) and their funding is steeped in conditions that
arise from this all but natural context. Sorry, I dont see these
'alternative sources' as the replacement of the needed public funds that are
sina qua non of improving the participation of those who are otherwise
marginalised from these spaces.
It for the IGC to decide what stand it wants or does not want to take on
this issue, but lets not confuse/shift issues. parminder
We need to stay engaged. At this point in time, I think the meeting will
just continue without us.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a strategic effort on behalf of
those on this list to develop speaking points well in advance of the
meeting. We should work with those attending to make a strong statement and
concurrently aggressively seek alternate sources of funding to support CS
engagement. Walking away, is in my opinion, is not the best action at this
moment in time.
Robert
--
R. Guerra
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
On 2012-02-11, at 1:15 AM, parminder wrote:
Hi All
While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have
mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage)
we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation
where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all
too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative
(merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required
results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal
right to participate.
In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more
upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business....
We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not
lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor
anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist
avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism).
Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised
how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants
for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a
statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave
a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them
that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the
two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply
to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused
to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism!
Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is
that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a
structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases
the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must
make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part
of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this.
And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as
follows:
The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours
after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this
regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when
the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not
multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders
being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues
like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and
strategies with regard to the whole IG process.
If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open
consultations.
Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we
can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the
report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long
term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG
etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of
legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk
out in the WG meeting to stress the point.
(We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press
attention, and raise the heat on this issue.)
Parminder
On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
Dear All,
I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS
representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue
for participation in the IGF process.
CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under
Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS
participation regardless of being in the MAG.
The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the
involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system
to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in
NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG.
I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial
participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget,
and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible.
I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will
consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case
from inside the process.
If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect
to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such
movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its
positions.
Best,
Miguel
Disclaimer
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
employer or any other institution.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
In message
<CAPcSPKWiFB_N948B9oxgSC2tCqsvvCN=5VgEmfoYdV3K_nha9Q at mail.gmail.com>, at
10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe <baudouin.schombe at gmail.com>
writes
Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be
noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT
projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime.
This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice"
always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling
expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or
Internet Governance issues.
Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you
will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend
any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU
World).
--
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120214/9fab4fe8/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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