<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Dear Valeria and Chat,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope
others follow the example.<br>
<br>
I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding
and decision making processes - of such meetings by the
organisers. And I keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting
was called Asia Pacific Consultation ...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM,
Valeria Betancourt wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Parminder,
I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who
is not subscribed to these lists.
Best,
Valeria
----
APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which
helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively
participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as
the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive
than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance
processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil
society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and
informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up
opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin
America, Africa and Asia.
In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed
the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia
in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in
funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified
participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can
contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget
to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where
this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from
Sida, DGIS and EIDHR.
>From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a
limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of
all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was
expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe
that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome
document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the
various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was
meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make
submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level
meeting in December.
For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie">https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie</a>
Best,
Chat
On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Anja
There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call
as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained,
public interest information about what is supposed to be a public
interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.
The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue
because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about
who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to
consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also
greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group
involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part
of category 1 above.)
I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of
category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may
not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective
information under category 1 sought in my earlier email .
Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues
that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a
worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....
On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Parminder,
I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to
which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know,
the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process.
Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with
other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even
eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when
the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what
extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken
into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that
situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that
concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York -
something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't
guaranteed at all.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php"><http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php></a> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian
Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public
interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing
to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to
answer, you should just say so.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried).
What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult
decisions indeed did have to be made.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an
"Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry
that label.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's
sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from
a range of perspectives.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything,
just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show
how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more
below...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus
plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of
perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts
all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a
meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
were not able to offer funding.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
decisions.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard
about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this
even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting
my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we
invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not
revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec you had this
Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates
were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not
understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being
another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements,
which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to
a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self
funded (although I could not have) if they knew about this meeting...
But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN
process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of
10 days)...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing
our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first
in our region for a meeting of this kind.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS
process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is
of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day
one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that
they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources
to attend this event and contribute to its success.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist,
so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members
especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including
developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource
page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs,
chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition.
This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of
perspectives'.
(Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
yesterday? )
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
They have worked in this area for quite some time..
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
message about this event to them though. If any representative of
APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely,
they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the
real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and
transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Hope this clarifies.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
My apologies, but it doesnt.
Best, parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Regards,
Anja
On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><mailto:parminder@itforchange.net></a>> wrote:
Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
Review,
*With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for
me to get into this thing....
This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
and so some questions arise in my mind:
(1) who is funding this 'consultation'
(2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
view, would be a consultation)
(3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
by whom, and who decided it..
Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
Engagement Mechanism <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/"><http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/></a>, which
describes itself as
"APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
processes in regional and global level. The platform is
initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
development related issues/processes. "
In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency
which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a
member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net
Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
so my questions..
parminder
On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Dear all,
The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners
Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional
Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in
Pattaya, Thailand.
The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to
ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely
address in the process of the review?
*
The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on
the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators
of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can
be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group
will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian
region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work
together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper
(comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft).
The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs
could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure
that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board
in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other
processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into,
these might be taken into consideration as well.
*The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting
that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next
input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be
drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a
wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of
professional expertise and geographical location. What unites
all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet
and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human
rights of all in our region.
*We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
be available. *For more information on remote participation and
the event in general, please see the event website
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.wsis10.asia/"><http://www.wsis10.asia/></a>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
know if you have any comments or questions.
Warm regards,
Anja
--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in">www.internetdemocracy.in</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/"><http://www.internetdemocracy.in/></a>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in">www.internetdemocracy.in</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/"><http://www.internetdemocracy.in/></a>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>