[bestbits] [governance] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
ekenyanito at gmail.com
Sat Oct 31 07:22:42 EDT 2015
+1 to Lea's questions/ views.
--
Best Regards,
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
Twitter: @ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1
On 31 October 2015 at 14:10, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> Dear Lea, Parminder, and others,
>
> FYI, the process below - like that previously for CS - is a standard
> operatiing process for NY now as it is seen by the 38th floor, and the
> PGA’s office, as being a real success story in getting interesting voices
> whom existing selection processes might not have surfaced. The person at
> NGLS who pioneered this with the climate summit in 2014 was just given an
> award by the Secretary-General personally for her efforts
> <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=b21d8b63-9909-4a07-b3c2-5b10050f2743&c=47897580-6ef2-11e5-8573-d4ae5284205e&ch=48688ae0-6ef2-11e5-8694-d4ae5284205e> -
> she’s actually a committed and really tremendous person who genuinely feels
> a passion for ensuring CS voices are effective at the UN named Susan
> Alzner. All of this suggests that the UN will probably resist changing a
> process that they just awarded because of requests that you all may make.
>
> Nothing wrong with making a point about this, but at the same time I would
> also put some effort into the selection committee and ensuring selectors
> put themselves forward that you believe will make good choices, including
> perhaps a fulsome consultation with the broader community. Anyone who wants
> to talk to Susan let me know, I’d be glad to introduce you.
>
> Regards, Nick
>
> On 31 Oct 2015, at 11:42, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ian, Parminder,
>
> Thanks for putting this on our agenda. Not against taking a stand on this.
> We have precedent with the IGF MAG, so could point to that. Although not
> ideal, UN DESA did take on 9/10 CSCG recommendations in the last MAG
> intake. And seeing as the MAG selection process is still something that
> needs improvement, we could leverage this effort (if successful) in the
> next round of MAG nominations.
>
> Going beyond the principle, I'd also be interested to hear from CS who
> were sitting on the selection committee for the July WSIS event (I think
> the UN used the same selection mechanism). Did that work at all? Would the
> final selection of CS reps at the July event been different had CS had
> control over the process?
>
> While we're on the topic, Ian, does the CSCG actively monitor UN calls for
> CS representation in relevant spaces? For instance, did the CSCG ever
> discuss the call for nominations for the Adis Ababa Technology Facilitation
> Mechanism Advisory Group? The call has now passed (last weekend I think),
> and IMO it's a real shame that we didn't have a broader CS discussion about
> this. The TFM is passing under people's radar, but could end up being
> influential in the broader IG ecosystem.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lea
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Oct 2015, at 08:08, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> Is there general agreement we should write something pointing this out and
> asking for a process where CS chooses its own reps?
>
> Perhaps we could ask for UNDESA to forward CS names submitted to us and we
> will advise our choices?
>
> Interested in other opinions on this.... we would have to move quickly...
>
>
>
> *From:* parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
> *To:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination:
> Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>
> This is what para 3 of part I of the section on roadmap of the NetMundial
> outcome document says:
>
> "Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet
> governance processes should be selected through open , democratic, and
> transparent processes. Different *stakeholder groups should self - manage
> their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and
> accountable mechanism*s." (Emphasis added)
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
> While I agree with your analysis,
>
>
> Ian, I am not sure you are seeing it the way I am. This is not about 4-5
> of us getting a few minutes from the podium. This is about civil society
> representation will be chosen in the IG space. And if you really feel it
> the way i do, why would you not agree to write as such to those in charge
> of the process.
>
> I don’t think there is any chance at all that this process will be changed
> in the short timeframe involved, however strong a protest we make.
>
>
> As I said, it does not matter if it changes. There is a larger structural
> point here. On the other hand, I am about 90 percent sure that if all
> groups involved in CSCG writes that this is not right, and please let us do
> our own selection they would agree. Civil society seems to have forgotten
> to leverage its legitimacy, and we seem to cave in to just about
> everything, a being beyond us to influence. This is not how it should be at
> all,
>
> So my own thoughts are that it is probably best to get involved, and from
> that position make a strong statement that the process is flawed and
> problematic from our point of view.
>
>
> Are you saying that the chosen speakers will speak from the podium that
> this process is flawed, and in this way? Please be clear. But if we are
> ready to have our speakers speak about it at the high level meeting, why
> would we not want to write about it to the co-facilitators and the
> concerned UN bureaucracy? Isnt that much simpler, and at least have the
> potential of meaningful impact.
>
> I also feel that we should be involved because in doing so we are able to
> correct some excesses from our point of view, but certainly not all.
>
>
> Again, did not understand. What excesses, and how are they corrected?
>
>
> However that’s just a personal point of view. We have just opened a
> discussion on this in CSCG and decisions may be quite different.
>
> One problem is that CSCG as such cannot nominate. Those who can according
> to this process are:
>
>
> These criteria are for those individuals who want to apply to be on the
> multistakeholder selection committee. My proposal is to disassociate CS
> selection from this multistakeholder selection process, and ask for CSCG to
> do it (I find it highly likely that they'd agree). So, the issue of the
> creteria you mention simply does not apply to the proposal I am making and
> seeking your and other people's views on.
>
> Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic
> and Social Council • Organizations accredited to the World Summit on the
> Information Society held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) • Organizations
> accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to 2015 • Organizations with
> observer status with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
> • Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS -
> Connecting the Dots Conference • Organizations accredited to the Financing
> for Development (FFD) process • Organizations accredited to the United
> Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 • Organizations already
> accredited to the WSIS+10 process (July and October meetings)
>
> So if CSCG as such is involved, it will have to be with our nominations as
> representatives of civil society organisations who do fit one at least of
> the above criteria.
>
>
> I am not asking for the CSCG to get involved with this multistakeholder
> selection process. On the contrary, I am asking for us to disassociate from
> it.
>
>
> Another problem is that the time frame for selecting speakers is roughly
> that of IGF – and with a 15 hour estimated commitment it may not be easy to
> find people able to represent us. I believe that if we are involved we
> should try to fill both civil society slots on the selection panel. But
> that will have to be as two separate nominations (backed by CSCG) from
> different CS groups.
>
>
> Again, you are speaking of CSCG getting involved with the current process,
> which is fundamentally different from my proposal to ask for CS nominations
> to be taken off the multistakeholder process, and be taken over by CSCG
> itself. Same about the rest of your email below.
>
>
> Ian, lets look at it in two parts. Do the involved CS groups agree that
> other stakeholders - big business, gov, ICANN/ ISOC - should not be
> involved in selection of its reps? Yes or no. If yes, then let us that put
> down in a letter. I am happy to fight the case, but if we have such a
> position and want to fight the case. We cannot keep citing expediency for
> just everything. But if we are ok with such a process, that is a different
> matter, and let different groups and individuals give their views... Their
> has to be some limit to - we agree it is wrong, but....
>
> parminder
>
>
> And if we do nominate representatives on the selection panel, we have to
> do so this week.
>
> And if I may add a further factor – I will be stepping down as the
> Independent Chair of CSCG shortly, as my term expires soon. I will not be
> standing again, as various factors are making it difficult for me to
> maintain an active involvement in these forums; and I think it is time for
> one of our very talented (and younger) members to take over. CSCG is
> currently drafting an EOI to seek a new independent Chair, with the aim of
> opening that process before IGF so that people get a chance to discuss it
> while many are present in Brazil. So the replacement process hopefully will
> complete by the end of this year.
>
> So in these circumstances – it would be good to hear from anyone who has
> an interest in working with CSCG as part of this particular process; I
> don’t necessarily want to be involved if we have good reps able to consult
> with CSCG members. If anyone is interested in this and wants to contact me
> privately to assist in this way, I would be happy to discuss further and
> approach CSCG as regards their involvement.
>
> Thanks for opening up a discussion on this.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder
> Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
>
> Please see the below announcement.
>
> It seems that there is a strong effort to institutionalise a system of
> civil society reps for speaker roles, but perhaps later also for more
> substantive roles, being selected by multistakeholder committees, meaning
> that big business and technical community gets a veto over civil society
> rep selection. (Do remember here that 'technical community' here is not
> that odd free and open software group volunteering their time in supporting
> government schools or the such. This term is accepted in the IG world now
> to denote those who work for and represent organisations engaged with
> technical governance of the Internet, and thus represent a governance
> status quo group. The semantic confusion about the term, as being people
> with technical capacities, is deliberate in order to utilise a certain
> legitimacy for what is a power based governance system.)
>
> The structural problem with such a process should be obvious.
>
> This is not acceptable for me, my organisation and the networks that I
> work with. Civil society has traditionally been fiercely protective of its
> independence, which includes the right to choose its own nominees (for
> instance, any efforts at national govs 'clearing' civil society reps from
> their countries has been strongly resisted at the UN and other global
> governance levels). I think we need to write back to those responsible for
> this process that , thanks but no thanks, you tell us how many CS sepakers
> you want and we have a process of selection for CS reps and we will deliver
> the names by the date you want.
>
> May I appeal to Ian and the CSCG to frame and send such a letter to WSIS
> process co-facilitators, and the concerned UN bureaucracy, at the earliest.
> Before these mentioned deadlines pass.
>
> Meanwhile, let me give some background on this....
>
> Just Net Coalition did write a letter addressed to the co-facilitators
> against such a process of big business sitting over decisions on CS reps.
> It seems to have had no effect.
>
> A few years back, there was an attempt by a certain group in the IGF MAG,
> led by the then Exec Director of the IGF, Markus Kummer, to institute a
> method of selections of non gov MAG members by a committee of older non gov
> MAG members. I was able to attend MAG meetings in those days as a Special
> Advisor to the chair. I opposed such a process of CS nominee selection by a
> committee that included big business and technical community (read the
> ICANN/ ISOC system). I was able to get the support of a few CS MAG members
> in the room, and I distinctly remember Graciala, Katitza, and Foaud in this
> regard, and perhaps a person or two more whose names may have dropped from
> my memory (my apologies).... And because of the CS opposition this
> problematic move had to be abandoned. Now it seems to be coming back from
> another door, and we need to stand up against it once again.
>
> Again, we have very little turnaround time here.
>
> parminder
>
> On Friday 30 October 2015 08:04 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: NGO News <ngonews at un.org>
> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
> Subject: [NGO News:] Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the
> General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
> To: crossini at publicknowledge.org
>
>
> *Deadlines: *
>
> *8 November 2015: Apply for Selection Committee*
>
> *12 November 2015: Apply for Speaking Roles*
>
> *The General Assembly High-level Meeting on the overall review of the
> implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
> Society will take place on 15-16 December 2015 at the UN Headquarters in
> New York.*
>
> This high-level meeting will provide an opportunity for in-depth
> discussions on important issues in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes,
> including the progress, gaps and challenges, as well as areas for future
> actions.
>
> *To apply to speak at the High-level Meeting, please complete the form
> available here
> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ffRSw8C5UGYRKrzdpCiWnyc2EMVTbmZ1SVGNnhs0FcQ/viewform>*.
> Applications will be accepted from *30 October to* *12 November 2015*.
>
> *A Selection Committee will be established* in order to ensure broad and
> inclusive participation of stakeholders in the high-level meeting.
> Applications to the Selection Committee will be accepted from *30 October
> to 8 November 2015*. To learn more about the Selection Committee, please
> see the Terms of Reference by clicking on this link
> <http://csonet.org/content/documents/WSIS+10_ToR_Steering_Committee.pdf>. *To
> apply to participate in the stakeholder Selection Committee, please
> complete the form available **here*
> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pzCRKLri16XUMNYNA9QECFnhCrO9Ub7ex0Ho2vdYp2k/viewform>
> *.*
>
> *Background*
>
> In December of 2003, the world came together in Geneva at the World Summit
> on Information Society (WSIS) to declare a "common desire and commitment to
> build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information
> Society," and ushered in an era of harnessing the power of information and
> communication technology to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium
> Development Goals (MDGs). The resulting Geneva Plan of Action established
> targets and the eleven action lines, which guide development in specific
> areas.
>
> The second phase of WSIS, conducted in Tunis in 2005, built upon the
> achievements of the Geneva Plan, with the resulting Tunis Agenda addressing
> additional issues, such as financing and internet governance. Paragraph 111
> of the Tunis Agenda, endorsed by the General Assembly in resolution 60/252,
> requested the General Assembly to undertake the overall review of the
> implementation of the outcomes of WSIS in 2015. In response, the General
> Assembly in resolution 68/302, decided that the overall review will be
> concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the General Assembly, to be
> preceded by an intergovernmental process that also takes into account
> inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Carolina Rossini *
>
> *Vice President, International Policy and Strategy *
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
> --
>
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20151031/36f79c77/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list