<!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="Verdana">Mawaki, is this the post you were referring to?
It is helpful, but more data would be appreciated. Thanks to those
who send info.</font><br>
<br>
On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, <b>Wolfgang</b> wrote: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear list <br>
<br>
I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the <b>IGC</b>
raises its voice in this case. <br>
<br>
My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move
backwards, to cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and
to withdraw from the principle of "multistakeholderism". It is
aimed to get the Internet policy processes back under control of
an intergovernmental regime and to silence non-governmental
stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues and
decision making. <br>
<br>
This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the
Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS
and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet
Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental)
approach". The acceptance of civil soceity as an "equal parter"
(in their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This
was paved by the constructive and substantial work the CS folks
did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS
Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and
handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in
the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the
results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).
The launch of the IGF as a "multistakehoder discussion platform"
was the result of this. It emerged as the only concrete result of
the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were unable to agree on
"enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of many
delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). <br>
<br>
However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of
"sharing power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in
2006 and 2007 where governmental representatives were questioning
the presence of non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you
go to the transcripts of these meetings then you will discover
that - as an example - the Chinese delegate never uses the word
"multistakholderism" but always the term "multilateral" when it
comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a "used language"
in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva 2003
compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for
international lawyers it is very clear that the legal
understanding of "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in
a "multilateral convention" are only governments. <br>
<br>
The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which
was first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was
later taken for granted (but never formalized). This was the
"spirit of Geneva", it was not the "spirit of New York". If you
talk to UN people in New York they send you to the moon of you
raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop global
policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The
so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in
UN policy development - once initiated by Kofi Annan -
disappeared in the archives and no single government in the UN
General Assembly in New York was ready to draft a resolution with
a follow up. <br>
<br>
I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some
people the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New
York is driven also by the political strategic aim to remove
"multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public
arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported
by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the
secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency,
formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence
non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do
not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. <br>
<br>
The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also
hundreds of "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with
non-governmental stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation
- the International Association for Media and Communication
Research (IAMCR), where I am an elected member of the
International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is officially
recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can do
is to send written statements which are published before the
meeting. You can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these
statements (sometimes several hundred pages). You have no right to
negotiate, you have no right to speak, you have even no right to
access the meeting room and to brief (or lobby) delegates. <br>
<br>
With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an
open and transparent debate among governmental and
non-governmental stakeholders. It re-opens the door for
intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. It is like in
the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were
removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening
sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took
three years and ten PrepComs to change this. <br>
<br>
This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is
paralleled by the planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This
"WSIS Forum" is led by three intergovernmental organisations (ITU,
UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent preparatory meeting in
Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on the podium.
Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs
relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector
in the ITU when he was asked about his understanding of
"multistakeholderism". <br>
<br>
During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and
a CS Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which
talked officially to the intergovernmental bureau. The
non-governmental mechanisms - which emerged as functioning units
during the WSIS process - more or less disappeared after Tunis
2005. The only remaining functioning of "multistakholderism" was
the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under fire. <br>
<br>
I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG
leaders and activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not
forget the bigger political environment. In many places you are
not welcomed. What you need beyond a good substantial IG agenda is
also a clear political strategy to find the places where you can
make your substantial arguments. You have permanently to
reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND macro
processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly
governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting -
to a certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And
please, stay united. <br>
<br>
And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet
Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the
implementation of the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025
strategy. <br>
<br>
Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this
exciting times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also
for the 2010s. <br>
<br>
Best wishes <br>
<br>
<b>Wolfgang</b> </blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<br>
Ginger (Virginia) Paque<br>
IGCBP Online Coordinator<br>
DiploFoundation<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig">www.diplomacy.edu/ig</a><br>
<br>
<b>The latest from Diplo...</b>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://DISCUSS.diplomacy.edu">http://DISCUSS.diplomacy.edu</a> is a space for discussing ideas and
concepts from Diplo’s teaching and research activities. Our
activities focus on three main areas: Internet governance,
diplomacy, and global governance. In September, we DISCUSS: a)
network neutrality: hype and reality, b) the IGF experience: what
can policy makers learn from the IGF, and c) the history of the
Internet. Let us know if you have suggestions about ideas and
concepts that should be discussed.</div>
<br>
On 9/10/2010 7:30 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=mm3qaR7cuAr3R=LVXBnugC7cO2LQPp0R45a_a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Ginger:
<div>I seem to remember Wolfy posting a refresher here a while ago
with a wealth of information about this coalition's genesis (I'd
say within the last 12 to 24 months, but I wouldn't bet on my
time memory about this). I hope the subject line was explicit
and specific enough for you to spot it if your search his posts
to this list, plus maybe one or two other related keywords.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mawaki<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Ginger
Paque <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font face="Verdana">Wolfgang:<br>
I think this is an excellent idea, and appropriate
especially in the opening session. However, I am having
a hard time finding the 'history of the IGC', although I
did find a link to the original page.
(<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Civil_Society_Internet_Governance_Caucus"
target="_blank">http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Civil_Society_Internet_Governance_Caucus</a>)<br>
<br>
Can anyone give us a summary, data, facts or links to
IGC history? Test your memories!<br>
<br>
thanks! Ginger<br>
</font>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
On 9/10/2010 2:18 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi everybody, hi Ginger and Jeremy
this is perfect. And it positions the IGC as a key voice of civil society in IG in a right way among the other main stakeholders. If you go to the list of speakers in both the opening and closing ceremony the indirect message is: The IGC is THE CS/IG platform.
I recommend both to Ginger and Jeremy to give one or two paragraphs to the history of the IGC so that new people in the IGF community understand where the IGC comes from, what it is and what the role could be in the future.
Best wishes
wolfgang
________________________________
Fra: Jeremy Malcolm [<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target="_blank">mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org</a>]
Sendt: to 09-09-2010 03:24
Til: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
Emne: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers
The results are as follows.. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making.
I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them.
Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen).
Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML):
Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers?
Answer Count Percentage
Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78%
Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88%
Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12%
Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97%
Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00%
Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59%
Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12%
Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28%
Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00%
Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78%
On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate.
Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular.
Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question:
What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations?
Answer Count Percentage
Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00%
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78%
Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69%
Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60..94%
Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12%
Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19%
Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50%
Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53%
Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75%
Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91%
Other 10 7.81%
Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers:
* Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)]
* An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)]
* Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)]
* All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j).
The other six are more or less novel:
* ICANN review and IANA contract
* Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG
* Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet
* Importance of an open and accessible Internet
* A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level)
* Free Software - Free Knowledge
So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process".
Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37</a>. The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>