[governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

[McTim]

Hi Izumi,

On 8/14/05, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:
>  
<cut>
>  Opening the door does not necessarily mean it is open in reality.
>  We need to think about "meaningful and effective participation".

There is a saying in Eglish:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

I agree that IG could involve lots more people than it currently does.
I think the WSIS/WGIG process itself might help in this regard.  

> 
>  Here is the exerts from the WGIG report, and I think at least some parts of
>  these languages do apply to ICANN and IETF.

yes, I had already read these and was not too impressed.

> 
>  19.      Meaningful participation in global policy development
>  There are significant barriers to multi-stakeholder participation in
> governance mechanisms.

This has not been my experience either as an individual or as a staff
member of an IG CS organisation.

>  There is often a lack of transparency, openness and participatory
> processes. 

same as above.

> 
>  Participation in some intergovernmental organizations and other
> international organizations is often limited and expensive, especially for
> developing countries, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, and
> small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Well this is true, but I don't see the *Forum* being any different in
this regard.

 
>  There is a lack of a global mechanism for participation by Governments,
> especially from developing countries, in addressing multisectoral issues
> related to global Internet policy development.

This presupposes that there should be a global mechanism (other than
the ones already in place).  I don't share that supposition.

> 
>  
>  People who are interested and who has resources participate,
>  but people who are interested but have no resources cannot participate,

true, but I can't see how the *Forum* is going to help.  Is the
*forum* going to fund connectivity/computers/travel for all the above
individuals/groups??  I don't see this as realistic.


>  > That requires more than "simple" secretariat I am afraid.

I agree.  It would require lots of money and effort.  If you can raise
the money, I'll be behind you all the way!
<cut>
> 
>  Depending solely
>  > on "volunteers" may give more privileges to those who
>  > have more resources and can afford to be volunteers.

This has always been the case in IG, is the case in WSIS/WGIG, and
will be the case going forward (IMO).


> 
>  In order to make effective dialogue (and decisions), online tools are not
> enough
>  in reality. 

You mean meetings.  I agree that f2f can work better at times and for
some issues. However, the more meetings, the more one perpetuates the
"more privileges to those who
have more resources and can afford to be volunteers" situation.

>  > 
>  > And I don't think it could function well if it is "all virtual".

Maybe not, but virtual meeting software, jabber/IRC/IM is cheaper than
sending folk all over the world.

> 
>  
>  I don't think it will fulfill it's goal of being more inclusive
>  utilising "meat space".
> 

>  Again, for you that could be more accessible, but not all in the
>  developed parts of the world, or non-English speaking people
>  if it were done in English Wikis.

Yes, one language is a hurdle that needs lots of thought/work to sort out.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance