Dear Everyone,<div><br><div>Reading the string of messages I am 'hearing' several issues which seem to be being conflated and which might be resolved more easily if handled separately?</div><div><br></div><div>1. The critical issue of the few civil society representatives able to attend the MAG meeting this week coming.</div>
<div><br></div><div>a) This is partly the result of people having resigned without their places being filled. Is there a process to address this circumstance? If not why not? If there is, why didn't it happen at the time? And why didn't we raise the issue then - or did we?</div>
<div><br></div><div>b) In the case of existing representatives who can't attend none of them has suggested that lack of funding is what is preventing their attendance. If the problem is in fact lack of funding then they should state this FAST.</div>
<div><br></div><div>c) In the absence of lack of funding as the issue preventing people from attending this meeting then I don't agree with the idea of 'walking out'.</div><div><br></div><div>2. Funding arrangement for civil society representatives at the MAG and similar meetings.</div>
<div><br></div><div>a) This is also crucially important. Robert seems to have some good suggestions towards resolving the problem.</div><div><br></div><div>b) In the case of the nominations process for the new MAG it would be interesting to discover how far the funding issue inhibited nominations. For myself I was initially interested in submitting a self-nomination. The Caribbean is woefully silent in the international arena, and I have a degree of credibility in the region in the Internet Governance field which, to an extent, crosses the language lines which tend to divide us. However when the funding issue came up I gave up. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I am grateful to the many agencies - DiploFoundation, the International Telecommunications Union, the Government of Canada, the Commonwealth Secretariat, LACNIC, the Caribbean Telecommunications Union - who have facilitated my attendance at regional and international IGF meetings since Hyderabad in 2008, and to the British development Division, British Airways and ICANN who made it possible for me to attend earlier international meetings in this field. However I funded myself to attend the Vilnius IGF in 2010, and I 'attended' Nairobi remotely last year. Self-funding is currently out of the question and I don't have an institutional affiliation that might help with funding so I didn't make a submission. That's not to suggest that anyone would have wanted to select me, but simply to document what may have influenced the nomination situation for several people.</div>
<div><br></div><div>c) Coming out of this, and while agreeing entirely with a need for face to face meetings, excellent quality in the provision for remote participation would make this particular playing field more level and would help to equip all of the team members with football boots. The developing world seems to spend a lot of its time trying to play barefoot when everyone else has studs.</div>
<div><br></div><div>and</div><div><br></div><div>3. I would like to say a public thank you to Izumi especially and to others who have done the same thing for his/their excellent real time reporting of meetings attended. Obviously this can't happen from a closed meeting.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Deirdre</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 February 2012 08:54, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Avri/ All<br>
<br>
I am proposing a token/ symbolic walk out, with walk-out-ers returning
after an hour or so. This is to start setting the stage for a possible
larger boycott if things simply do not improve. I do not know what else
you have in mind for setting the stage foe a possible symbolic walkout
after a few months. I dont see anyone taking any notice of anything
less then what I propose (will be great even if they take note of this).<br>
<br>
The problem is that in the typical market/ busies thinking dominated IG
environment, funding participation looks like a 'well-of course' kind
of a side issue, not a central and necessary feature of improving
participation (MSism). And we need to do something which attempts to
make the point clear that it is a necessary feature of improving
participation, and the whole thing can be considered a sham without it.
Only something like a symbolic walk out may make some people start
thinking, well, they seem to be rather agitated, so lets see what they
are trying to convey etc....<br>
<br>
At the GW on IGF Improvements, we tried to be as dramatic as possible,
read out a very forceful statement, and this was a small group of which
we were designated members, and the exclusions of those who could not
attend was also starkly clear. But no one took notice, no one really
responded or even sympathised and proceedings went off like normal.
Point is; they dont think it to be central MS issue. We must place it
there.<br>
<br>
Perhaps most importantly, if we can have some action in the MAG/ open
consultations there is a chance that this issue can be strongly brought
up in the WG on IGF improvements, and the CS members present make it a
non negotiable thing that the final report clearly writes down in its
report that CS participation in MAG etc has to be ensured with regular
UN budget and long term commitments of voluntary funds. If this thing
does not go into the report now then CS will always be at the mercy on
how the things stand at the moment. This fact brings special urgency to
the issue<br>
<br>
(When i said time for letters is over, i meant time for 'just' writing
letters is over.)<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font></span></font><div><div class="h5"><br>
On Saturday 11 February 2012 05:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi,
While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts.
I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared
And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for.
Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation.
If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't.
avri
On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi All
While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate.
In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism).
Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism!
Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this.
And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows:
The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process.
If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations.
Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point.
(We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.)
Parminder
On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Dear All,
I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process.
CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG.
The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG.
I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible.
I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process.
If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions.
Best,
Miguel
Disclaimer
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry <a href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com" target="_blank"><roland@internetpolicyagency.com></a> wrote:
In message <a href="mailto:CAPcSPKWiFB_N948B9oxgSC2tCqsvvCN=5VgEmfoYdV3K_nha9Q@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank"><CAPcSPKWiFB_N948B9oxgSC2tCqsvvCN=5VgEmfoYdV3K_nha9Q@mail.gmail.com></a>, at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe <a href="mailto:baudouin.schombe@gmail.com" target="_blank"><baudouin.schombe@gmail.com></a> writes
Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be
noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT
projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime.
This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues.
Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World).
--
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> </pre>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
</div></div>