[bestbits] [governance] NOTE - Call for Nomination: Stakeholder Speakers at the General Assembly High-level Meeting on WSIS+10
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Oct 31 08:43:41 EDT 2015
Nick
I am sure that you understand what is it that I am objecting to bec I
made it very clear in my email. I am *not* objecting to a novel process
that may be devised to set up a selection committee of civil society
persons to nominate civil society speakers. (Although unlike what may be
true in other areas, in IG area we precisely have such a self organising
system within the CS, which is an important point to keep in sight.)
What I am objecting to is the presence of business and technical
community members (ICANN/ ISOC), meaning non civil society members, in
any such selection committee..
Do you confirm that the climate summit process, that was rewarded, and
you say is now the accepted process, involved business members in the
selection committee that selected civil society speakers? I dont think
so, but I will let to comment on it.
If not, your arugments are quite beside the point here.
So lets focus on the issue which is under contention - to repeat, the
problem of business persons and tech community (read ICANN/ ISOC)
selecting CS reps... It is NOT this civil society nomination process or
that, *as long as the selection committee is made of civil society persons*.
parminder
On Saturday 31 October 2015 04:40 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 6:58 PM
>>> *To:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ;
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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 <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:32 PM
>>>>> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;
>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto: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/_
>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Carolina Rossini /
>>>>>> /Vice President, International Policy/
>>>>>> *Public Knowledge*
>>>>>> _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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20151031/3c3d7a13/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 901 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20151031/3c3d7a13/attachment.sig>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list