<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Ginger<br>
<br>
Thanks for taking the initiative on this. As you will expect I am very
supportive of the issues that the current statement takes up. I think
IGF review should be focusing on two things. <br>
<br>
One, on ensuring substantive 'inclusive' participation, as opposed to
just formal (which IGF's present architecture mostly ensures). This
point is very well brought out by the present draft statement, and I
very much agree with the detail it has gone into in this respect. <br>
<br>
Secondly, the public policy impact, especially at global level, that
IGF has made. This, in my opinion, was the purpose of creating the IGF
- to help develop global IG policies and institutions. The review
should obviously focus on this raison de' etre of the IGF.
'Participation' is meaningless without a context of 'for what purpose'
and 'towards what end'. <br>
<br>
It will be good to go through numerous statements on the IGF that the
IGC has developed, including the recent one specifically on the subject
of review, and pull out all key points from these. I think the current
context and opportunity is to get as much of our perspective as
possible into the synthesis paper on the comments on the subject of IGF
review which will be presented to the IGF at its annual meeting. Our
effort should be directed by this imperative. And since there is time
till 15th July to give our comments to be included in this synthesis
paper, we can pull out important elements from our earlier submissions,
as well have a good discussion on the subject on the list.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Ginger Paque wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4A2ABBCA.1050701@gmail.com" type="cite">Hi
Jeanette. I will deal specifically with the paragraph you note:
<br>
<br>
We are trying to say two things:
<br>
<br>
1. We are concerned about the yet "unheard voices" that should be
included in the IGF process. Right now, perhaps several tens of
thousands of people, out of the world's populations, are actively
involved in the IGF process. Many groups are not represented, and one
of our goals should be to include more minority groups.
<br>
<br>
2. We are concerned about the proposal to turn the IGF into an purely
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussions.
<br>
<br>
Can you rephrase the paragraph so that it is clearer, or explain your
objections?
<br>
<br>
Thanks! Best,
<br>
Ginger
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi,
<br>
<br>
I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as
it focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.
<br>
<br>
The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter
part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this
context:
<br>
<br>
However, the IGC is concerned about the
<br>
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders,
<br>
the inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see
<br>
addressed, and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively
<br>
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
<br>
<br>
jeanette
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
William Drake wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi
<br>
<br>
I oppose this statement. With the IGF up for renewal and China and
others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's
earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief
beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of
experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and
this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?) fault.
I don't see how this is helpful.
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
<br>
Bill
<br>
<br>
On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">To MG: point taken on remote
participation. So, now we have:
<br>
<br>
The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of
the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates
the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle
of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however,
that from the perspective of civil society, this principle has not
been fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a
crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for
a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
<br>
<br>
The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow
and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved
in the IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed,
and with the counter-proposal to create an exclusively
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
<br>
<br>
Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
participation.
<br>
<br>
<br>
gurstein wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Ginger,
<br>
<br>
I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it seems
to
<br>
me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is
capitalized)
<br>
as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
<br>
participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
<br>
inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in the
way
<br>
I am suggesting...
<br>
<br>
So either something should be added such as "but not limited to,
greater use
<br>
of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
<br>
particular areas of concern such as for example the disability
communities,
<br>
indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." or
there
<br>
should be no examples.
<br>
<br>
MBG
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----
<br>
From: Ginger Paque [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">mailto:gpaque@gmail.com</a>] Sent: Friday, June 05,
2009 11:22 AM
<br>
To: gurstein
<br>
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
<br>
Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest
version
<br>
(McTim's changes)
<br>
<br>
<br>
How about this compromise between the two versions?
<br>
<br>
The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
actively
<br>
engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN
WSIS
<br>
global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN
Internet
<br>
Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
<br>
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that
from
<br>
the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
<br>
implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial interest
in
<br>
the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons
not
<br>
been engaged in this process.
<br>
<br>
The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow
and
<br>
broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in
the
<br>
IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
<br>
multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
lack of
<br>
participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the
inclusion of
<br>
the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
<br>
counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum
driven by
<br>
decisions instead of discussion.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
gurstein wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Okay, here it is...
<br>
<br>
MBG
<br>
<br>
<br>
The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of
the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates
the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle
of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however,
that at least from the perspective of civil society. this principle has
not been fully implemented since many of those with an active, even a
crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet have for
a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
<br>
<br>
And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people
with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the
poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned
with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures built
on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of
Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized
opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and
activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support
of broad based economic and social development.
<br>
<br>
The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in
the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders,
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed,
and with the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively
intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of discussion.
<br>
<br>
Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
participation.
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----
<br>
From: Ginger Paque [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">mailto:gpaque@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
<br>
To: '<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
<br>
Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
<br>
(McTim's changes)
<br>
<br>
<br>
Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF
Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael
Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or
included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your
silence for assent?
<br>
<br>
The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been
actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of
the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates
the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation
of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.
<br>
<br>
The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and
broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF
process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
mutltistakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the
lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and the
counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum
driven by decisions instead of discussion.
<br>
<br>
Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
participation.
<br>
<br>
More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current
process could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active
inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices through, but
not limited to, remote participation.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
***********************************************************
<br>
William J. Drake
<br>
Senior Associate
<br>
Centre for International Governance
<br>
Graduate Institute of International and
<br>
Development Studies
<br>
Geneva, Switzerland
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html">www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html</a>
<br>
***********************************************************
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>