<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi All<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
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 <b>CS
participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that
doesnt include this. </b><br>
</font><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">And the best way to make this
message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows:<br>
<br>
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 <b>most</b> 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.<br>
<br>
If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open
consultations.<br>
<br>
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 (<i>plus</i>
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.<br>
<br>
(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.)<br>
<br>
Parminder </font><br>
<br>
<br>
On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMnrbsTeYo-H94xXVNzFK4L++tSi5QM9S45OXUE9rviQknaWng@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear All,<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Miguel<br>
<br>
Disclaimer<br>
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
employer or any other institution.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland
Perry <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">In
message
<CAPcSPKWiFB_N948B9oxgSC2tCqsvvCN=<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:5VgEmfoYdV3K_nha9Q@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">5VgEmfoYdV3K_nha9Q@mail.gmail.com</a>>,
at
10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:baudouin.schombe@gmail.com"
target="_blank">baudouin.schombe@gmail.com</a>> writes
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Specifically,
regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be<br>
noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT<br>
projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-- <br>
Roland Perry<br>
<br>
</font></span><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</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>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>