[governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi,

I have to agree with Bill here. The statement seems a bit onesided as it 
focuses one aspect only but fails to be concrete about this point.

The following sentence seems particularly abstract to me. Its latter 
part about the intergovernmental forum I don't understand in this context:

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.

jeanette



William Drake wrote:
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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