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

[William Drake]

Hi

I oppose this statement.  With the IGF up for renewal and China and  
others pressing to kill it, it would seem odd for CS---the IGF's  
earliest and most consistent supporter, and arguably its chief  
beneficiary---to have nothing more to say after three years of  
experience than that unnamed constituencies are not participating and  
this presumably is the IGF's (meaning what, the secretariat's?)  
fault.  I don't see how this is helpful.

Best,

Bill

On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> To MG: point taken on remote participation. So, now we have:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> gurstein wrote:
>> 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

***********************************************************
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