[governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]

Tue Jun 2 14:19:00 EDT 2009

Hi Ginger,

That is a very interesting challenge and I've just been reflecting on
it...and why I'm finding it so difficult to respond directly...

I think the reason is that in order to respond I/we need to reflect on and
recognize the limits (and costs) of "multi-stakeholderism"... The kind of
critical voices that I've been pointing to are precisely those that have not
been included as "stakeholders" in these overall IG discussions and notably
were not included in the "official" WSIS discussions.

But then reflecting on the "official" WSIS discussions and the process of
stakeholder inclusion, one thing that I think is extremely notable (a Ph.D.
topic for a very brave soul), is that contrary to most such UN thematic
conferences, at WSIS I&II there was no contra-conference... 

The other UN Conferences were as notable for the counter conference staged
by Civil Society as by the official conference and the most useful long term
outcomes (and certainly long term energies) from these other conferences
arguably was the result of the creative dialogue/tension between the "ins"
and the "outs"--between the officials and the critics... Between governments
and civil society!

With WSIS, apart from a brief flurry of activity around some localized human
rights issues in Tunis, there was a notable lack of (creative) tension at
these events and effectively no "counter" conference either physically on
site or virtually in cyberspace. The potentially "critical" voices were
either completely uninvolved (the new media/ICT/social networking/ culture
folks), or absorbed as footnotes in the larger national or NGO initiatives
(indigenous peoples, the grassroots folks, disability advocates etc.). And
this process has continued with the IGF (and the narrowing of the band of
issues under discussion) with even the "footnotes" being disengaged through
lack of interest/attention/funding and IG related civil society being
evidently quite content with this outcome.

So from this perspective I don't see what proposal might be presented that
would deal with what I see as being in fact a systemic rather than an
operational issue...

But as a bit of a suggestion (only slightly tongue in cheek), the IGF could
do rather worse than taking a look at
http://intercontinentalcry.org/continental-indigenous-summit-focused-on-unit
y/ and inviting some of these folks to participate and present what their
take might be on "Global Internet Governance".

MBG

Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and
Training Vancouver, CANADA http://www.communityinformatics.net
CA tel. +1-604-602-0624

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:10 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement]

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