[bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants

Tue Jun 21 14:44:43 EDT 2016

I think I didn't make myself sufficiently clear.

I am not talking about being loud or making noise, I'm talking about the
authority that can be exerted by a large number of voices speaking
together. Civil society has not "spoken together" for rather a long time,
but on this issue, no matter how diverse our ideas may be, I would expect
that the majority of civil society (perhaps of everyone??) would agree that
it would be desirable at the very least to be able to observe what is
happening at the meeting and ideally to have a formal means of contributing
to it.

Given something that potentially we can agree on, this is in fact a great
opportunity to test our communal strength.

Deirdre

On 21 June 2016 at 13:54, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> (Apologies I have no idea if my msg gets out to JNC, pls fwd if
> appropriate)
>
> I'm not sure if being loud or making noise has done the best it could so
> far.
> I agree we should agree, as CS, on some topics but I also see the
> challenge on that, being CS (fortunately) a diverse group.
>
> The topic of remote participation, for instance, has had some news in this
> last call, as Lea has expressed.
> The twitter like updates remain.
> The streaming - even if partial - seems to be an idea which has been
> dropped for the moment.
>
> As for the balance in SG representation on the retreat, from the list one
> can easily see that CS numbers are low. Even more worrying, CSCG nominees
> number are even lower. That when compared, for instance, with the numbers
> of gov and intergov.
>
> I was reminded that even though CS is participating on retreat, each one
> of its participants is there on their own personal capacity, not those of
> their organization.
>
> So, while this makes it clearer fo the CS rep to express their thoughts,
> also takes us back to the original question: what, if any, does CS as a
> group have to do with the next 10 years of the IGF and how should it go
> about it?
>
> Just a quick addition: I find twitter updates way more able to
> interpretation and polemic than streaming of a meeting, so I do not
> understand very well the choice there. What isn`t spoken has much more
> power than what is out there in the open.
>
> Best,
>
> Renata
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 1:42 PM, Deirdre Williams williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Particularly in the cause of transparency and inclusion this discussion
>> should be happening as widely as possibly among civil society. With
>> apologies I have therefore copied to IGC and JNC. Perhaps others can spread
>> the word further to as much of "global civil society" as possible, since
>> all of us speaking together would have a VERY loud voice that would demand
>> attention.
>> Best wishes
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On 21 June 2016 at 12:27, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>>
>> Just my 2c but I don’t think it should really be a negotiation, I know I
>> may be naïve in certain aspects of the IGF working methods but open and
>> transparent was always told to me to be a core concept. I don’t think we
>> should be compromising those ideals at this critical juncture. Without that
>> what do we really have to move forward with.
>>
>> -jg
>>
>> From: <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Nnenna Nwakanma
>> <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
>> Date: Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 17:20
>> To: Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
>> Cc: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>, Best Bits <
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants
>>
>> Thanks, Lea
>>
>> I think it is important that CS folks organisee CS remote participation.
>> That is, if the IGF secretariat is okay with it.
>>
>> Just thinking loud
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just got off the MAG call. Remote participation for the Retreat still not
>> sorted out. From what I understood, we can expect live tweeting under
>> Chatham house rules, but that could be it. Others on the call can
>> corroborate -
>>
>> Best,
>> Lea
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>
>> Great point Ayden.  I would hope that those who have been invited to
>> participate will continue to be push hard for remote participation.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 6/20/2016 11:41 AM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote:
>>
>> Dear Lea,
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be participating
>> in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that remote participation
>> will be available to all to observe the dialogue exchanged?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full list
>> of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> *Lea Kaspar*
>>
>> Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>
>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216
>>
>> gp-digital.org
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Chengetai Masango* <cmasango at unog.ch>
>> Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM
>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants
>> To: MAG-public <igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at:
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Chengetai
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
>> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
>> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160621/7bb95ba2/attachment.htm>