[governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version (McTim's changes)

[gurstein]

Ginger,

I think that this is good except for the final paragraph where it seems to
me that the use of "Remote Participation" (not sure why it is capitalized)
as the only example seems to prioritize this where to my mind "remote
participation" without some attendant efforts to broaden the base of
inclusion will not necessarily broaden the base of participation in the way
I am suggesting...

So either something should be added such as "but not limited to, greater use
of remote participation and specific outreach to constituencies with
particular areas of concern such as for example the disability communities,
indigenous peoples, ICT for Development grassroots practitioners." or there
should be no examples.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:22 AM
To: gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'YJ Park'
Subject: Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
(McTim's changes)


How about this compromise between the two versions?

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, that from
the perspective of civil society, this principle has not been fully
implemented since many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in
the health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not
been engaged in this process.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow and
broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the
IGF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the
multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of
participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, the inclusion of
the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, and with the
counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by
decisions instead of discussion.







gurstein wrote:
> Okay, here it is...
>
> MBG
>
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle 
> of multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. We feel however, 
> that at least from the perspective of civil society. this principle 
> has not been fully implemented since many of those with an active, 
> even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the Internet 
> have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this process.
>
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures 
> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of 
> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized 
> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and 
> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in 
> support of broad based economic and social development.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and 
> broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in 
> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
> multi-stakeholder principle. However, the IGC is concerned about the 
> lack of participation by the broader base of possible stakeholders, 
> inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed, 
> and with 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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for 
> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF 
> Review Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael 
> Gurstein made some very good comments which have not been discussed or 
> included in the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your 
> silence for assent?
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful 
> implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until 
> the present.
>
> 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 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.
>
> 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