[governance] IGC

Sun Dec 6 20:30:25 EST 2009

Hi Fouad, Tracy

Yes, the point about access is one that we always have to take into account.
It's always really cool to use the newer and more full-featured
technologies, but we must always remember the fact (and the reason we are
here in IGF) that so much of the world does not have the access necessary to
participate in the Internet world with all the bells and whistles.

One solution that I have seen working in ICT4D groups is to use online
forums and posts that automatically go to the mailing list, and vice versa.
But we also still have to consider the SIZE of these messages, because as
you indicated, it is still expensive and slow in many parts of the world
(including in the Caribbean!).

I am against the idea of paying dues. I think that volunteers in a group
such as this do already donate by their time, expertise etc. (As well as
considering the major issues with receiving funds as a caucus, and from
different parts of the world, in different currencies)
I'm also concerned about the idea of getting IGC support from the IGF
Secretariat for 2 reasons - 1 - the Secretariat doesn't usually have a lot
of funding, and does support civil society in general for participation at
the meetings and so on, but I think that supporting the caucus itself might
be beyond and 2) Financial support tends to take us into a realm of
considering the "funder's" agenda when we are looking to develop our
position, and I would really hate to lose the independence and diversity of
opinion and thought we have here now.

I love Kati's idea about increasing our caucus document production and I
think that's definitely an area that we can work on very soon and relatively
easily.

I'm interested in ideas to expand the reach and membership of the IGC, but
I'm leery of implementing ideas which will lead to reduction in diversity,
increased difficulty for equal participation by ALL, and possible reduced
independence.

My $0.02

Jacqueline

-----Original Message-----
From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, 06 December 2009 07:03 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google
Cc: Katitza Rodriguez
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC

My two cents on this:

* This is for the sake of discussion and should not be taken as
criticism, please!

Tracy, ummm, these ideas are a bit overwhelming though I like the
ideas about social networking website like using ning and we do have
an example of one of our members from the DiploFoundation using it on
http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org and many of our members can
help implement it if the IGC reaches consensus to it in the near
future.

But, I would like to share a small case here, last whole year, I had
no electricity in Pakistan for about 16-20 hours everyday and had to
use a small but very expensive Edge device to access my emails and was
limited in my participation because of my Internet speed at 4-10kbps.
This means I can't access websites like Facebook or Ning. Similarly,
some things would be of key concern regarding the afore mentioned like
whether do we all in the developing world have such speedy access to
the Internet to open and participate in such live discussions or the
choice of passive email medium is the best route since everyone at one
point in time or the other can participate equally and inclusively.
Also, the issue about access of the social network on a mobile device
or low-spec machines might come up and the solution for IGC is
supposed to be easily, equally, inclusively accessible by all of our
members and even those that are yet to join or use the Internet!

I know some of these ideas may be easily implemented if this was the
same as the government agency you are serving in for smaller projects
but we have an IGC Charter we follow with mutual and inclusive
consensus and any change to that has to be taken forward with mutual
consensus and through a collaborative process that the IGC Charter
provides us with.

I also know a lot of IGC people that I've seen participating in the
various international meetings mentioned but one also has to realize
that the members usually do so by interest or voluntarily or if they
find resources through fellowships and grants like you and me to put
as an example.

I don't know if the charging of fees is a good way to go. Most of us
don't have credit cards in the developing world and we won't be able
to pay up. Say the fees was set to a one time US$50, that would be Pak
Rupees 4200 which is a lot of money for us and so would it be for many
other nations. Maybe I can meet up with Ginger on the various
occasions that I have and pay her the dues but what will the rest of
the 99% of IGC do? In my personal opinion, bad idea!!!!

I have learnt one thing while participating in Civil Society that we
have to think about others when we plan or suggest such ideas and
invite all or atleast think about the low-income and least developed.
All of us are not in the best case scenario nor in the worst of
conditions but still we have our limitations and we have a gather as a
community to carry out  a number of collective activities with regards
to Internet Governance Forum and Internet Governance in general.

My own feelings come down to the fact that since we are discussing
restructuring of IGF in a separate discussion thread, these
discussions about improving IGC functioning in proportion with the
previous should also be done in the same thread so that we have a
record of all these suggestions that can be later put together as
suggestions for IGC. The suggestions for IGC can be moved to our
website while the suggestions for the restructuring of the IGF can be
collected, shared and then disseminated to the secretariat.

I also like what Kati has shared as they are some wonderful ideas with
the Civil Society aspect in mind and would be very useful in the
future indeed that concern us all and as she mentions the meetings,
those come from the Open Consultations and MAG meetings strategy for
IGC!!!

Lets keep the ideas flowing in!!!

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google
<tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone:
> I am not sure if this was discussed/raised/explored/shot down before,
> because of the current IGC discussion list format, but from my own
> experiences, here are some thoughts to move the IGC forward and attract a
> wider and deeper cross-section of "civil society" (see the excellent and
> concise LSE definition of this dilemma
>
at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction/what_is_civil_society.h
tm):
> 1. Evolve the dialog away from the dated mailing/discussion list format
> towards a more transparent and open Social Networking & Collaboration
> platform - I recommend that Marc Andreessen's and Giani Bianchini's
> brilliant Ning technology be used as opposed to the somewhat restricted
> Facebook, Orkut, and the like. Establishment of appropriate IGC presences
on
> Twitter, Scribd and YouTube will also be useful. Utilization of emerging
> solutions such as Google Wave should be explored. Enterprise solutions
such
> as Social Text, Lotus Connections are also available if a more robust
> solution is desirable.
> 2. Move the IGC into the mainstream and raise its profile through a
physical
> "re-launch" or "event". This event could consist of the presentation of a
> series of Civil society position papers as alluded to by Katitza. A timely
> slot for this would perhaps be immediately pre-IGF 2010, or for more
> diffused but consistent impact, pre-ICANN, iNET and IETF 2010
> meetings/conferences.
> 3. Develop a regular meeting or series of meetings where the IGC
membership
> can interact and engage in strategic planning. The technology deployed if
> (1) is accepted will make this extraordinarily simple - time zone
> considerations aside.
> 4. Develop a Strategic Plan, Operating Budget and solicit appropriate
> financial support from its membership - membership growth beyond the
> existing should be guaranteed by (1) and (2). The Wikipedia donation model
> is instructive. I am also certain that the IGF Secretariat will provide
> support if a Strategic Plan, Budget and Operational Plan for 2010-2011
were
> presented.
> Mobilize. Grow. Prosper.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Katitza Rodriguez
> <katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear IGC members:
>>
>> I would like to see the IGC grows as a caucus. Grow not only in terms of
>> members but grows in terms of outcomes/deliverables and capacity of
>> organization.
>>
>>  It is vitally important that IGC produce their own papers to address the
>> most relevant topics at the IG level. It is equally important that IGC
can
>> take into account also all those collective civil society papers that
were
>> released in other venues but are crucial also for the IGC debate. It
should
>> be both ways. All will depend on the issue, the time, the knowledge, the
>> capacity, our energy, our passion and our capacity to make things done,
>> among many other factors.
>>
>> We all need to learn to put in the table not only the issues that we care
>> about but also the issues that others civil society participants care
about,
>> and defend all with the same passion.
>>
>> We should be able to better organize ourselves. Having meetings every
>> morning before each meeting to debrief of what's going on in each
workshop
>> and be able to respond in each workshop is vitally important. Some
>> groups/networks/coalition does this work. Can we do it as a whole group?
>> This can happen only if we are well organized. There were more than 111
>> workshops. If we can monitor all the workshops and have always one or two
>> civil society participants able to put in the table those issues that we
>> care about, we will a better capacity to at least educate/share
>> knowledge/give another point ot view to all those who are on the room, on
>> the issues that civil society participants cares about.
>>
>> Hopefully, the candidates have a vision on this regards and can move
>> forward the process. IT is a lot of work, and its not easy but we should
do
>> it if we want to be effective.
>>
>> Warm Regards
>>
>> Katitza
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Advisor & Researcher
ICT4D & Internet Governance
Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
My Blog: Internet's Governance
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets:
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
MAG Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
____________________________________________________________
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