<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<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]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 18 November 2009 09:39<br>
<b>To:</b> 'governance@lists.cpsr.org'<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:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
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>
</body>
</html>