[governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]

Tue Jun 2 13:04:52 EDT 2009

I agree that there is an issue in the IGF with "unheard voices"...

But the issue (and its resolution) may not simply be the mechanical one of
lack of (technological or other) opportunity for participation.  

The issue of "unheard voices" is as much about what those voices might have
to say about alternative approaches/issue areas/basic assumptions concerning
IG and this isn't dealt with by mechanical/technological means.

Rather it requires an opening up of the discussion to critical voices around
what is meant (or could be meant) by "governance" in and of the Internet
(q.v. GG's continuing commentary on collaborative or open governance),
questions concerning how current assumptions/practices of Internet
governance privilege certain approaches (and players) and disempower/limit
access for other players (q.v. the on-going critique of IG issues coming
from indigenous communities), mechanisms for opening up IG to effective
interaction with various groups with special needs (q.v. the contrast
between the lobbying effectiveness of the evidently very well resourced
"youth at risk" lobby with the seemingly much greater difficulty with
intervention from the various disability groups etc.etc.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:00 AM
To: William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]

Thanks Bill,

I personally think that we as CS would benefit from governments joining 
us as equals in real discussions and debates. This is not happening, nor 
is it likely to happen. But we can still work towards that.

If that is not considered a workable proposal, what might be? Can you 
propose an alternate wording, or do you think it should be deleted 
completely?

Is there a way to deal more concretely with inclusion of unheard voices? 
Can we offer a realistic alternative?

Please (everyone) suggest alternate possibilities.

Thanks! gp

William Drake wrote:
> 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
>
>

____________________________________________________________
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