[governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement

[William Drake]

Hi,

I agree that it would be important to get greater government involvement 
in IGF.  However, it's not entirely obvious to me why we would want to 
write to the secretariat saying this, since they are acutely aware of 
the issue already.  Moreover, such a statement might be misrepresented 
in some circles as lending credence to the purported need for a more 
intergovernmental orientation.  And given all the views expressed in IGC 
over the years on this point, I don't suspect we're going to get 
consensus on the pay-off rec that "We ask whether a more substantial 
output in the form of a statement, recommendations or guidelines would 
catalyze this engagement." 

In short, if the G77 and China want to submit a statement on their 
long-held positions, fine, but I don't understand why the IGC should do 
it for them.  Don't we have any distinctive priorities to convey, from a 
CS standpoint?

Best,

Bill

Ginger Paque wrote:
> I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my 
> thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process 
> must include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just 
> talking to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big 
> picture. If the government thought is that the other stakeholders (us) 
> will be distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they 
> (governments) can go off and do business as usual, we are not using 
> the IGF process to effect real change. Not only do governments have to 
> listen to us, we have to listen to them.
>
> Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include 
> this. Please opine. Thanks! gp
>
> McTim wrote:
>> Ginger,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>  
>>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow 
>>> and broad
>>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF 
>>> process by
>>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder 
>>> principle.
>>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by 
>>> governments
>>>     
>>
>> Are we, really?
>>
>>  
>>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum
>>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>>
>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
>>> review
>>> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
>>> participation. To do
>>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF 
>>> process.
>>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>>     
>>
>> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
>> I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
>> listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
>> each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
>> output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
>> am happy with.
>>
>>  
>>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current 
>>> process
>>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active 
>>> inclusion of
>>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>>> remote participation.
>>>     
>>
>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


-- 
***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
**********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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