<!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="Arial">Hi Lisa and all,<br>
<br>
Lisa, you make an important point, and I agree with you entirely. Ian
and the IGC acted appropriately and I am sure we will do a proper
institutional follow-up. I wasn't even there: I am giving one "remote
participation" opinion.<br>
<br>
My points were meant as a comment on negotiating technique, strategy
and appearances, from the "big picture" as seen from outside; from a
long-range view. The "amorphous civil society stakeholder group" is
very powerful. I think that we can benefit from analyzing what we do
both as the IGC and as individual members of civil society, to maximize
our impact on all levels in the future. I agree that we should use the
tools available to us, including Web 2.0 tools when appropriate, taking
advantage of their strength, but avoiding apparent manipulation for
media splash and immediate effect while possibly sacrificing the
long-range credibility of civil society in general.<br>
<br>
In this particularly venue, I think civil society might have wielded
its power better by following diplomatic channels more forcefully and
formally, and being strictly objective in the Web 2.0 reaction.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your excellent response.<br>
Best,<br>
Ginger<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Lisa Horner wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02A7BDF@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Just a quick response to this. I think that
we need
to distinguish between (a) coordinated civil society responses to
events by the
IGC and (b) the personal responses of individual members of the broad
and
amorphous "civil society" stakeholder group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I think that the IGC behaved entirely
appropriately in
response to the events, seeking to clarify what happened and meeting
with
Markus along with other concerned stakeholders.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I also think that individuals/organisations
were well
within their rights to blog and communicate about their opinions and
versions
of events. Not on behalf of "civil society", but in their own
personal capacities. We shouldn’t be trying to stifle that kind of
citizen
reporting and expression that the internet has empowered us to engage
in.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Multi-stakeholder fora like the IGF do
present tensions
for civil society organisations, many of which are mandated to act as
watchdogs
over government and business. We discussed at the IGC meeting in Sharm
the
issue of the IGC having lost energy and momentum over the past few
years, and I
think that this tension between campaigning and multi-stakeholder
engagement/neogtiation
is one reason for that. We need to find appropriate ways of navigating
around
it, but I don’t think trying to manage “web 2.0” responses to
events isn’t the right way forward. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Lisa<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: windowtext;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: windowtext;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt medium medium; padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; color: windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; color: windowtext;">
Ginger Paque [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">mailto:gpaque@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 18 November 2009 09:39<br>
<b>To:</b> '<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [governance] Civil Society participation, my opinion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"><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>
</span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>