<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><br>
I am not in Sharm El Sheikh at the IGF, and I did not witness the ONI
“incident”. I am not opining on the incident itself, but the way Civil
Society may have handled it, and the way the "big picture" is perceived
from outside. We as Civil Society are maturing, and
taking our rightful place as a stakeholder on the international stage.
To be a real “player” in international meetings, we need to consider
the rules and practices that are in place on the stage we choose. We
have asked to sit at the table, so we have to observe these rules. We
may try to change
the rules, but until we change them, we have to respect the existing
ones. This is
basic to almost any social activity.<br>
<br>
Civil Society is joining the international policy processes as a
newcomer. The situation is similar to that of women in many places: CS
has to work twice as hard and be twice as correct if we want to be
taken seriously. Our response to any incident may be stronger if it is
more discrete, and more correct than anyone else’s. We will lose
credibility if we do not investigate ALL of the facts before we react.
And not just the facts, but the possible perception, which as we know,
matters in any "politics", including international "politics". <br>
<br>
According to Ronald Deibert, the ONI poster was not put on the floor by
the UN security. Why was it there? Did the videos on the Internet imply
that UN Security had put it there? It looks like media manipulation.
This does not increase our credibility. China alleges that they
protested because
the banner was in the public space without permission. China found a
“diplomatic” means to protest, which was a tool at their disposal. The
CS reaction should be through these same procedures, directed to the
IGF Secretariat. If we ask to join a UN forum, then our reaction and
appeal should be to the UN Forum, in this case, to the IGF Secretariat
directly.<br>
<br>
</font></span><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">Even
when a serious error is made, our reaction has to be appropriate to the
venue. I think that a proper statement of protest, with a request for
inquiry following UN protocol would have gotten a more serious and
favorable result than a manipulative Web 2.0 reaction. If we want to be
considered international policy stakeholders, we have to be solid,
professional and credible. <br>
<br>
>From the outside, it looks like China managed to remove the poster,
and still come out winning points because the Civil Society reaction
appears to be manipulative. ONI also won from this incident, with
publicity for its book. The main loser is Civil Society because it does
not look ready for particpation in serious
international policy processes. The incident may also influence
the discussion on the future of the IGF. There are quite a few
important
players who see IGF as a deviation/exception to “normal” diplomacy.
With a Web 2.0 reaction, we strengthen arguments to end this
“experiment”
in multilateral diplomacy. Again, Civil Society would be the biggest
loser. We lose on all counts. Life is not fair. You don’t get what you
deserve, you get what you “negotiate”. I do not think that we
negotiated well.<br>
<br>
>From an "old dog" still trying to learn new tricks.<br>
Best,<br>
Ginger<br>
</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>