[governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]

[Ginger Paque]

Exactly. That is why a discussion forum like the IGF is precisely the 
place to hear these unheard or rarely heard voices. Do you have a 
suggestion on how to improve the wording of the proposal?

Thanks!



Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 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