Dear all,<br><br>A current controversy, such as CS funding and
representation on the MAG should be publicised and addressed in an open,
transparent and constructive manner. Right now, we see the example of the
SOPA/ACTA wave. If you are following the news about the
ACTA-protest in Europe, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16999497" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16999497</a><div style="display:inline-block;width:16px;height:16px"> </div>
you might agree that the main criticism of ACTA is its deficit of
legitimacy: its lack of inclusion and transparency, its denial of
alternate positions. Multistakeholder issues are similar, and as
strongly rooted.<br>
<br>The IGC's action at this moment in IG policy history is critical
and
should be constructively aimed at supporting the IGF. The current
situation of the IGF is a mix of inertia and policy fatigue. This
wake-up call should remind all stakeholders that we need the IGF now,
more than ever before, and that a renewed and strengthened IGF is in
the interest of
most stakeholders. We must communicate better, not only in the
interest of CS, but also of the IGF and ultimately of the
Internet itself. The Internet is still trying to find the place to
discuss
its policy issues. Venues are constantly changing and even
competing. Our best option is to use a renewed and strengthened IGF as a
central forum. <br>
<br>
In this context, while the IGC and CS action will address the issue of CS
financial support it may be also serve as a catalyst for a call to action in support of
the IGF.<br>
<br>
Practically speaking, there have been several good ideas. Miguel
and Parminder propose an effective declaration without being combative
(controversial, yes, but not aggressive). If CS reads a statement at the beginning of the MAG meeting,
including an emphasis that a meeting that does not include Civil
Society is not a Multistakeholder meeting, and
then walks out for a stipulated time, that establishes a strong position. The constructive tone of our
declaration should be aimed at solutions. <br>
<br>
I think that this symbolic gesture should be openly
planned during the OC, and that clear consensus by CS is necessary
or this will not work. I have pasted below an excerpt from an ISOC statement that offers support and foundation. Other organisations should be invited to sign on. Business and other stakeholders should be
directly invited to join and support this demonstration.<br>
As soon as a coherent strategy is formed, press releases,
statements, blogs, tweets and Facebook events can and should be
organized and implemented by Civil Society and its supporters.<br>
<br>
I am willing to help coordinate online support through blogs, FB and Twitter. I think likewise,
that there must be a Geneva strategy and coordination. I leave this to other colleagues who will be in Geneva. <br><br>Agreement is important, so we must hear other voices. What do you all think?<br><br>Ginger<br clear="all">
<br><br clear="all">ISOC:<br><br>We strongly believe that policies and legal norms regarding the
Internet and its use (including the enforcement of intellectual
property on the Internet) should be should be developed with the
full and active participation of all stakeholders in an open and
transparent manner, consistent with paragraph 8 of the Tunis Agenda
for the Information Society<a href="http://internetsociety.org/internet-societys-letter-dated-honourable-members-european-parliament-february-2012#footnote-i" title="link to footnote" target="_blank">[i]</a><div style="display:inline-block;width:16px;min-height:16px">
</div> . We also
believe that supporting the ratification of an internationally
binding agreement on matters of “Internet governance” that was not
developed in an open, transparent and inclusive manner sets a bad
precedent and risks undermining confidence in the European political
system.<br>
<br>
Source:
<a href="http://internetsociety.org/internet-societys-letter-dated-honourable-members-european-parliament-february-2012" target="_blank">http://internetsociety.org/internet-societys-letter-dated-honourable-members-european-parliament-february-2012</a><div style="display:inline-block;width:16px;min-height:16px">
</div><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 February 2012 12:09, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">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">
Hi Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
On Saturday 11 February 2012 06:10 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>1+ Avri is right. It needs more preparations, a strategy, </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
what kind of preparations, and and what strategy, pl provide some
details,
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>reasonable alternative proposals.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
and what alternative proposals have you in mind. Alternative to what. I
am seeking clear commitment for core funding, from regular UN funding
plus long term committed voluntary funding, to always include funding
for CS
participation in MAG and this should not be left to the elements as has
been
for more than a year now. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre> May would be nuch more effective than February. Than we have also the Report from the CSTD WG.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
As mentioned in my earlier email, I think we need to make this issue as
visible as possible <i>right</i> <i>now</i> so that we can get it
inscribed into
the WG report. This is by far our best opportunity. Any time later will
be too late for this purpose.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>
w
________________________________
Von: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Sa 11.02.2012 13:18
An: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers]
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>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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>