[governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus

[Ginger Paque]

Ok, obviously the statement is not clear, as it should not be having 
these reactions.

I see this statement as 100% overwhelmingly supportive of the IGF 
process, so much so that we do not feel a review is necessary, but that 
we can go right on to trying to continually improve. The IGC has 
indicated in an earlier statement that:

"The process of consultations should especially keep in mind 
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, 
such as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil 
society. Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues 
like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be 
specifically approached."

The response to this in the May OC was that we cannot include people who 
know nothing about the IGF process in the review of the IGF process. But 
the IGC did agree on the above quoted statement, which leads me to the 
conclusion that lesser heard voices with lower participation are a 
concern for the IGC. Giving those groups a voice in the IGF process in 
fact, seems to me to be a primary concern.

Bill (Drake) could you please clarify your position for me? I re-read 
your email and the statement, and I still see the proposed new statement 
as supportive of the IGF, and as dealing with a very important point 
about the future possibilities of the IGF. Sorry to be dense. What am I 
missing?





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