[bestbits] [governance] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Sep 9 03:04:47 EDT 2015
On Monday 07 September 2015 09:21 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Hi Parminder.
>
> I wanted to understand the picture better before writing a response.
> As I have gone and returned from the Consultation at Pattaya, I feel
> more able to respond.
Dear Peng Hwa,
I read your email several times, because you call it a response to my
email, but I still could not see the response. As you will see from the
trailing emails, I deliberately sent two different emails raising two
sets of issues - one set more important, primary, and substantively
clear and precise, and the other kind of subsidiary, although also quite
important. I requested that the first set be addressed separately so
that there is no loss of focus from the primary set of the most
important and, to repeat, precise and clear issues of transparency and
accountability. I repeat them;
(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..
(Let me also stress the issue of it being a 'consultation' and an 'Asia
Pacific consultation' at that which greatly increases the salience of
the above points.)
The only response I can understand to this request is either to agree
that these questions of transparency and accountability are important,
and add your voice to them, or disagree and hold them to be not
important or necessary. I really am not able to see from your email
which of the two possible responses are you indicating. I will request
you to clarify this . Thanks.
> Fwiw, the outcome document is available
> at http://wsis10.asia/index.php/outcomes.
Yes, I saw it. Notably, it says " Accountability and transparency must
also be applied to other stakeholder groups, including but not limited
to the private sector..." and "Transparent and accountable procedural
rules that empower marginalised voices and those who lack technical
expertise need to be developed."
!!??
I want to be very respectful to those who evolved this document, but
seriously, I am fully confounded.... Can one get away by saying and
claiming anything, while publicly acting in quite the opposite manner
(this is with regard to the organisers), that too in the civil society
space that is supposed to be the morality holder of the society. Maybe
you have some comments on this.
Best regards
parminder
>
> Your questions remind me of a similar set of criteria you asked of me
> re the APrIGF when we held the meeting first in HK and then Singapore.
> So it’s with that sense of deja vu that I’m writing this email.
>
> I will not go into the details of your questions. (One long reply can
> only beget another.) Instead, I will focus on what I consider to be
> the larger issues.
>
> 1. I think that such bottom-up initiatives should be encouraged.
> It is a lot of work to get going a meeting that attempts to represent
> AP views. In this consultation, there were forces working against it
> happening, because of fears that the group might raise sensitive
> issues. (I hope it did.) You probably mean well but some cheerleading
> with some gentle nudges (instead of harrumphs) should the group stray
> would be more encouraging to current and future initiatives.
>
> 2. There is a tension between legitimacy and efficacy.
> They are not in total contradiction because a non-legitimate outcome
> will likely not be efficacious. But I hope you can see how trying to
> cross all the “T"s and dotting the “I"s may mean not moving forward in
> such situations. For example Edmon and I were so enthused about
> getting the APrIGF going so that there would be some form of feedback
> from Asia-Pac to the IGF in 2010 that it took us two years for the
> APrIGF MSG (a culturally appropriate term) to have me elected as
> Chair. Before that, as Edmon was leading the event in HK, he chaired
> the meetings that year; and when I did Singapore, I chaired the
> meetings for that year. There was sufficient buy-in from the AP
> organisations in our nascent stage that the APrIGF was able to move
> forward.
>
> 3. So how does one recognise legitimacy?
> I don’t see one size fitting all. It is a mix of process and outcome,
> of being open and inclusive and being transparent in processes and
> outcomes. But also in achieving at least a reasonable outcome. The
> ultimate test is acceptance by the Internet community. In the present
> case, the acceptance of the Pattaya key messages. (Google obviously
> has questions about legitimacy; it asks, "Did you mean: pattaya
> massages?”)
>
> 4. In the interest of transparency, I declare that the organisers paid
> for my budget airline ticket from Singapore to Bangkok, the transfers
> to and from Bangkok airport and the stay in Pattaya. The transfers in
> Singapore, the tips to the drivers and tips to the staff who serviced
> my hotel room were paid by me.
>
> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of Parminder
> Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, 2 September 2015 3:01 pm
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
> Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian
> Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation
> available
>
> 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:
>> 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.
>
> 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
> <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> 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')
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> '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...
>
>
>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
>> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
>
> 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.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
> decisions.
>
>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
>
> 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)...
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 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...
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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? )
>>
>> 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,
>
> They have worked in this area for quite some time..
>
>> 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.
>
> 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...
>
>>
>> Hope this clarifies.
>
> My apologies, but it doesnt.
>
> Best, parminder
>>
>> Regards,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> 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 <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, 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:
>>> 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
>>> <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. 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
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
> and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or
> disclose its contents.
> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150909/96ac6e93/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list