<span id="result_box" class="long_text" lang="en"><span class="hps">Hello</span> <span class="hps">Michael</span><span>,</span><br><br> <span class="hps">With regard to</span> <span class="hps">legitimacy</span><span class="">,</span> <span class="hps">I agree</span> <span class="hps">with you</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">Legitimacy that</span> <span class="hps">must be to</span> <span class="hps">base</span> <span class="hps">the principle</span> <span class="hps">of</span> <span class="hps atn">multi-</span><span class="">stakeholders</span><span>.</span><br>
<span class="hps">The</span> <span class="hps">principle is universal</span><span class="">, but enforcement remains</span> <span class="hps">in</span> <span class="hps">the logic</span> <span class="hps">level</span> <span class="hps">of each country</span> <span class="hps">taking</span> <span class="hps">their</span> <span class="hps">real</span> <span class="hps">political, economic and</span> <span class="hps">social</span><span>.</span><br>
<span class="hps">I'll meet you</span> <span class="hps">on</span> <span class="hps">the issue of funding</span> <span class="hps">the process.</span> <span class="hps">It is</span> <span class="hps">here that</span> <span class="hps">we must</span> <span class="hps">find appropriate answers</span><span>.<br>
<b><br>Baudouin<br></b></span></span><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/2/13 michael gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span></div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Effective governance is in large part about the
perception of legitimacy. In the context of the Internet it is clear
that in order for the governance processes (including those processes about
process as the IGF to a considerable extent is) to have legitimacy
there must be participation by the various stakeholders. Certain of the
stakeholder groups notably the private sector and the technical community as
supported largely by the private sector have a clear set of (financial)
interests in effective governance. Governments as providing the regulatory
framework within which the Internet operates clearly have set of interests
in ensuring that national regulatory (and other) priorities are
reflected/accommodated within the goverance structures.</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000ff"><font><span>There is also a clear public interest in Internet
governance which under other circumstances might be represented by governments
but in the particular circumstances of the Int</span><span>ernet -- because of its rapidly changing, somewhat
technical and global reach -- is proving somewhat difficult to channel public
inter<span>e</span>st perspectives/requirements through
conventional governmental structures.</span></font></font></font></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">This
means that the public interest (or in another way the non-commercial,
non-technical, non-regulatory interests of Internet users) needs to be
represented in Internet Governance or the process lacks
legitimacy.</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">It is
in the overall interests of the Internet and all stakeholders that Internet
Governance is perceived as legitimate (note the current issues around the
perceived illegitimacy of the ACTA process).</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Thus
it is in the overall interest of Internet Governance (and the Internet
Governance processes) that there is a civil society participation (the
comparable OECD processes have already moved some considerable way along the
path to the recognition of this.</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">The
question then becomes how to ensure funding for this process. <span> The most appropriate and fairest way for funding
such inclusion would be through taxation however, since there is no global
governance mechanism through which such taxation might be enforced this is a
major problem. However,</span> <span>a</span>
few pennies from each of the domain registrations/renewals would more tha<span>n</span> adequately fund the entire Internet Governance
process including ensuring public interest participation in the MAG/IGF
etc.etc.</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Such a contribution to orderly and effective
Internet governance processes should surely be of considerable interest to
those most directly concerned with ensuring an orderly and effective operation
of the Internet. </font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span></span> </div>
<div><span><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">As per Deidre's earlier comments and other
anecdotal information it would appear that there is already considerable support
coming informally from that quarter for CS participation in the IGF and other
Internet Governance processes. Perhaps those who have been doing this
informally may wish to take a leadership in looking to formalize this
process.</font></span></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#000000" face="Arial">Mike</font></span> </div>
<blockquote style="margin-right:0px" dir="ltr"><div class="im">
<div></div>
<div dir="ltr" lang="en-us" align="left"><font face="Tahoma">-----Original Message-----<br><b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>parminder<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:42 AM<br><b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Robert Guerra<br><b>Subject:</b> Re:
[governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers]<br><br></font></div></div><div class="im"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Robert</font><br><br>On Saturday 11
February 2012 07:08 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Parminder,
<div><br></div>
<div>I don't agree with a walk out over the lack of financial support to
participate. <br></div></blockquote><br>I only asked for a symbolic
walkout, not a boycott of the session. It would simply have been an expression
of solidarity by those who are able to make to the meeting on their own funds
with those are not able to do so. And hopefully, the event would help raise
the visibility of this issue, which for me and many of us in the South is at
the heart of multistakeholderism. And hopefully, this would have allowed those
in the WG on IGF improvements to insist that the WG report makes the necessary
provision.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br></div>
<div>The current economic situation is such that funding of any kind is hard
to obtain. Things will only get worse over the course of the next 2
years.</div></blockquote><br>That is a lame excuse and we can do better than
to fall prey to it. What economic situation are you talking about? Why has
this bad situation not affected private funding for attendees? Why does it
only affect public funding? Every two months or so a large conference seems to
get held in the North on IG issues? Why doesnt the economic conditions affect
this sudden rash of IG meetings and conferences? Ensuring committed funding
for MAG CS members is what, about 30 international tickets and the cost of a
few days each of stay in a year. Even a small university and many NGOs hold a
few meetings every year which will entail such costs, what to speak of
governments and businesses. So lets be a little less patronising on this key
and central issue of global governance. NO, these 30 tickets is not the issue.
The issue is the deeper political economy equation whereby representative
global governance systems are sought to be increasingly undermined in favour
of private/ business led governance systems, where the seats are allocated
according to ones' existing power. We from the South say a loud and clear NO
to this creeping acquisition. This is the primary issue in contention
here.<br><br>And by 'seeking alternative funds' I understand one means looking
for funds provided by businesses and other institutions that have
pre-committed ideology (like all of us) and their funding is steeped in
conditions that arise from this all but natural context. Sorry, I dont see
these 'alternative sources' as the replacement of the needed public funds that
are sina qua non of improving the participation of those who are otherwise
marginalised from these spaces. <br><br>It for the IGC to decide what stand it
wants or does not want to take on this issue, but lets not confuse/shift
issues. parminder <br><br><br>
</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="im">
<div> We need to stay engaged. At this point in time, I think the
meeting will just continue without us.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a strategic effort on behalf of
those on this list to develop speaking points well in advance of the
meeting. We should work with those attending to make a strong statement and
concurrently aggressively seek alternate sources of funding to support CS
engagement. Walking away, is in my opinion, is not the best action at this
moment in time.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Robert</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--</div>
</div><div><div class="im">
<div><span style="border-collapse:separate;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font:medium Helvetica;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font:medium Helvetica;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="border-collapse:separate;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font:medium Helvetica;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="border-collapse:separate;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font:medium Helvetica;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">R. Guerra</div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Phone/Cell: <a href="tel:%2B1%20202-905-2081" value="+12029052081" target="_blank">+1 202-905-2081</a></div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/netfreedom" target="_blank">twitter.com/netfreedom</a> <br>Email: <a href="mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org" target="_blank">rguerra@privaterra.org</a></div>
</span></div></span></div></span></span></div><br>
</div><div><div class="h5"><div>
<div>On 2012-02-11, at 1:15 AM, parminder wrote:</div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"><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 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 href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com" target="_blank">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">In message <CAPcSPKWiFB_N948B9oxgSC2tCqsvvCN=<a 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 href="mailto:baudouin.schombe@gmail.com" target="_blank">baudouin.schombe@gmail.com</a>> writes
<div><br>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">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><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 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></blockquote></div>____________________________________________________________<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></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote></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"><br>-- <br>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN<br>CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/<br>ACADEMIE DES TIC<br>FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre<br>At-Large Member<br>NCSG Member<br><br><a href="mailto:email%3Abaudouin.schombe@gmail.com" target="_blank">email:baudouin.schombe@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="mailto:baudouin.schombe@ticafrica.net" target="_blank">baudouin.schombe@ticafrica.net</a><br>tél:+243998983491<br>skype:b.schombe<br>wite web:<a href="http://webmail.ticafrica.net" target="_blank">http://webmail.ticafrica.net</a><br>
blog:<a href="http://akimambo.unblog.fr" target="_blank">http://akimambo.unblog.fr</a><br><br>