[governance] IGF workshop approval criteria

[Parminder]

I agree. The MS principle can be only be applied in a somewhat loose spirit
that the intention of the workshop is of an open dialogue with all
stakeholders, and not a narrow, completely pre-conceived and closed
assertion of partisan positions. 

There are obvious problem of getting business sector and government partners
easily. Adding to what Bill says, I must say that the situation is even
worse for CS entities in developing countries. 

- As for business sector, the main actor I have seen on the IGF stage is
ICC, and it is not surprising because unlike the diversity of CS, business
sector finds it easier to push common positions through better structured
systems(which, since they aren't by nature public interest advocacy bodies,
is somewhat predictable - in terms of pro-business, less-regulation, etc
etc). I don't see any non ICC actor from developing counties in the IS
forums I have been at, not many at least. And we have little contact with
ICC, and its key personnel involved in IGF. This discourages less connected
groups from advancing their agenda - even if only for discussion.

- everyone would have noticed that developing countries governments are more
difficult to approach by CS than developed countries. And we have few
connections with developing country govs. Even if some bureaucrats are open
to some ideas, the foreign ministry culture, and lack of precedents, may not
allow them to sign on co-sponsorship.  Again smaller, less connected groups
are discouraged, more likely excluded. 

If this above looks unconvincing, I will request anyone to get me a private
sector partner for discussing issues of a greater commons/public-ness of
internet based Internet resource management. I am looking for one, and help
will be greatly appreciated. Or else convince me that this is not a
legitimate topic for a workshop.


I think these all are structural issues regarding 'participation' and the MS
issue is NOT the only participation issue. 

Parminder 


 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 1:59 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Since Adam sent the below to the list after a series of private exchanges
> between us on the same, I'd like to give my view, with which he disagrees.
> 
> Snipping..
> 
> On 6/15/07 10:38 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> > My guess is demand for workshops will be higher
> > this year -- IGF's better known and more will
> 
> > Last year all workshop proposals were accepted.
> 
> > If demand for workshops is greater than the
> > number of available slots --even after merging of
> > like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject
> > some.  I think demand may well exceed supply.
> > Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting
> > is the advisory group. And I suspect the first
> > criteria for judging proposals will be if the
> > workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing
> > team behind it.  Proposals from the caucus will
> > be good, certainly would show broad civil society
> > support, but involving other stakeholders will be
> > essential. Regional diversity also positive.
> > Just my opinion.
> 
> I believe it would a bit unfair and potentially problematic for many
> CS-initiated proposals if the mAG opts this year to strictly require that
> workshops truly have multistakeholder sponsorship in order to get
> approved,
> on the following grounds:
> 
> 1.  Precedent.  Irrespective of what it said on the website, many
> workshops
> approved for Athens were not remotely multistakeholder in organization, in
> that they were sponsored by intra-species collaborations, single
> organizations (IOs, business, CS) or individuals.  Aside from Adam's
> message
> to this list yesterday, two weeks before the submission deadline, there
> has
> been no public indication from the secretariat or mAG that the nominal
> rule
> so clearly ignored last time will be enforced this time.  To me, that's in
> effect changing the game mid-stream with little notification, and people
> might understandably have been proceeding on the assumption they didn't
> have
> to worry too much about this.   Adam disagrees.
> 
> 2.  Political Reality.  It would be nice to believe that all stakeholders
> support the IGF serving as an open forum in which, per WGIG, any
> stakeholder
> can raise any issue, and hence are prepared to support any workshop
> initiative that is on an important topic.  But as we have seen in many
> ways,
> most recently with the funding withdrawal threat, the actual support for
> free and open dialogue on any and all topics is rather variable.  Some
> stakeholders may view proposed topics through the lens of their strategic
> postures, even though it's only dialogue and not a negotiation.  One can
> readily imagine topics that CS groups might like to have discussed that
> would have a difficult time winning co-sponsorship from industry,
> technical/administrative groupings, or certain governments.  I for example
> might have problems getting support from such quarters for a session on a
> development agenda because it's misconstrued as necessarily implying the
> same sort of 'controversial and divisive' negotiations that happened with
> the WIPO DA (it doesn't).   The same might apply to resources as global
> commons, don't know.  Conversely, many CS groups might be reluctant to
> sign
> onto an industry workshop on the glories of telecom liberalization and
> privatization, the COE convention as a boon to civil liberties, or
> whatever.
> Moreover, international organizations and governments might have
> additional
> constraints in considering co-sponsorship requests, e.g. turf
> considerations, the need to stay within agreed mandates, fear of being
> associated with a 'controversial' topic even if they like it, reticence
> about signing onto something initiated by CS, and so on.  In sum, if now
> strictly applied, the rule would seem to favor anodyne topics and framings
> that all can support like capacity building or, for that matter,
> openness/diversity/security/access, over some tougher issues that really
> need to be worked through and that the IGF alone can provide space for.
> 
> 3.  Sponsorship vs Dialogue.  To me, what really matters is the flavor of
> the dialogue, whether the speakers are MS and multi-perspective, not
> whether
> the formal sponsorship is.  I cannot see why the names at the top of a
> proposal are more important than the names of the panelists and the actual
> discussion that ensues.  And it it will be much easier to get government,
> IO, or industry people lined up as speakers than it is to get the same
> people to convince their minister, SG, or CEO to organizationally endorse
> a
> WS.
> 
> Parminder would like CS mAG members to communicate his request for more
> time
> to the mAG and the secretariat (I'm agnostic on that---the deadline was
> announced some time ago).  I would request in parallel that they
> communicate
> this request that the MS requirement be construed more with regard to the
> speakers and actual dialogue rather than the sponsorship.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance