[governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles"

Fri Aug 16 10:30:52 EDT 2013

I agree with Adam that as long as processes aren't clear, the HLM and its
outcomes should be kept more clearly separate from the HLM.

As to Adam's question of why people want to attend: in my case this was
simply driven by the topic, "cyber ethics principles". Freedom of
expression has been a major focus of the Internet Democracy Project, which
I work with, over the past two years, and discussions like these have the
potential to lead to very negative repercussions on free speech online.
Being in the room makes it easier to know what is going on in governments'
minds, and to adequately respond if necessary.

Best,
Anja

On 14 August 2013 21:43, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Hi Anriette,
>
> Thanks for asking those questions and more.
>
> Comments below.
>
> On Aug 14, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> > Dear Adam
> >
> > I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration.
> >
> > Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become
> > more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked
> > processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are
> > formally part of the main IGF?
> >
>
>
> I think we'd quite soon face the same situation as we kind of see now with
> open forums when they become quasi-workshops.  What I mean is, we are
> trying to create a fair and transparent process for the IGF adhering to
> various principles, side events would perhaps side-step those processes and
> principles.  So for now my answer is we do not want ALL outcomes from
> IGF-linked processes to be reflected. Not until we know what we're dealing
> with and have principle-based processes in place,
>
>
>
> > I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event
> > like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was
> > certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a
> > case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing.
> >
>
>
> From what I remember the Nairobi ministerial meeting it was very limited
> in the number of non-govt stakeholders, and wasn't intended to be
> multi-stakeholder.  The Bali meetings starts with the MAG all invited which
> makes 30+ (I think!), way ahead already.  But I expect it will still be
> rather dull, the intent to allow governments to make statements as they
> usually do in UN forums.  Exactly the kind of session we try to avoid in
> the IGF itself.  I am not sure why people want to attend.
>
>
> > I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with
> > one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level
> > protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with
> > interactive dialogue.
> >
>
> You have to get them there first before they can join the broader dialogue
> and that was the intention behind the ministerial/high-level meeting.
>  Worked to a degree in Nairobi, not sure since.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> > Anriette
> >
> > On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote:
> >> Parminder,
> >>
> >> My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled
> "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a
> format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and
> their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on.  And I understand it worked
> in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to
> attend the IGF.  And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly
> separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM
> or giganet (etc).  But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting
> produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on
> the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the
> document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF
> process <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012-igfbaku>.  Also a problem
> that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM
> agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented.
> >>
> >> Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the
> Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented
> along side the Chairman's summary?  If it were on the host website only,
> then much less of an issue.  This should be fixed for Bali.
> >>
> >> Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper
> will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.)  Pre-meetings begin
> to mix with sessions of the IGF.  Would be good to make a very clear
> demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.)
> >>
> >> Adam
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote:
> >>
> >>> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of
> the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where
> people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make
> connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many
> civil society kinds may to be too eager about.
> >>>
> >>> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come
> out of the HLM. That is crucial.
> >>>
> >>> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting?
> >>>
> >>> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil
> society member of the MAG, and await them.
> >>>
> >>> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing
> without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from
> governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over
> just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their
> retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill
> in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental
> participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this
> meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise
> the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is
> the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only
> real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil
> socity may want to think around these issues as well.
> >>>
> >>> parminder
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the
> >>>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for
> >>>>>>> the NomCom...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could
> >>>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD
> enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet
> unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to
> the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level
> mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for
> positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more.  But it's also
> ambitious.
> >>>>
> >>>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant
> to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and
> transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and
> present it at that workshop.  I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what
> is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC
> then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach
> out to the other relevant groups and networks too.  If it were me though, I
> would rather wait.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> >>>> Senior Policy Officer
> >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
> >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
> Lumpur, Malaysia
> >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> >>>>
> >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
> knowledge hub |
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >>>>
> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> >>>>
> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >>>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> > executive director, association for progressive communications
> > www.apc.org
> > po box 29755, melville 2109
> > south africa
> > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130816/c42de36d/attachment.htm>