[governance] Civil Society participation, my opinion

[Lisa Horner]

Hi 

 

Just a quick response to this.  I think that we need to distinguish
between (a) coordinated civil society responses to events by the IGC and
(b) the personal responses of individual members of the broad and
amorphous "civil society" stakeholder group.

 

I think that the IGC behaved entirely appropriately in response to the
events, seeking to clarify what happened and meeting with Markus along
with other concerned stakeholders.

 

I also think that individuals/organisations were well within their
rights to blog and communicate about their opinions and versions of
events.  Not on behalf of "civil society", but in their own personal
capacities.  We shouldn't be trying to stifle that kind of citizen
reporting and expression that the internet has empowered us to engage
in.

 

Multi-stakeholder fora like the IGF do present tensions for civil
society organisations, many of which are mandated to act as watchdogs
over government and business.  We discussed at the IGC meeting in Sharm
the issue of the IGC having lost energy and momentum over the past few
years, and I think that this tension between campaigning and
multi-stakeholder engagement/neogtiation is one reason for that.  We
need to find appropriate ways of navigating around it, but I don't think
trying to manage "web 2.0" responses to events isn't the right way
forward.  

 

Thanks,

 

Lisa

 

 

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: 18 November 2009 09:39
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: [governance] Civil Society participation, my opinion

 


I am not in Sharm El Sheikh at the IGF, and I did not witness the ONI
"incident". I am not opining on the incident itself, but the way Civil
Society may have handled it, and the way the "big picture" is perceived
from outside. We as Civil Society are maturing, and taking our rightful
place as a stakeholder on the international stage. To be a real "player"
in international meetings, we need to consider the rules and practices
that are in place on the stage we choose. We have asked to sit at the
table, so we have to observe these rules. We may try to change the
rules, but until we change them, we have to respect the existing ones.
This is basic to almost any social activity.

Civil Society is joining the international policy processes as a
newcomer. The situation is similar to that of women in many places: CS
has to work twice as hard and be twice as correct if we want to be taken
seriously. Our response to any incident may be stronger if it is more
discrete, and more correct than anyone else's. We will lose credibility
if we do not investigate ALL of the facts before we react. And not just
the facts, but the possible perception, which as we know, matters in any
"politics", including international "politics". 
 
According to Ronald Deibert, the ONI poster was not put on the floor by
the UN security. Why was it there? Did the videos on the Internet imply
that UN Security had put it there? It looks like media manipulation.
This does not increase our credibility. China alleges that they
protested because the banner was in the public space without permission.
China found a "diplomatic" means to protest, which was a tool at their
disposal. The CS reaction should be through these same procedures,
directed to the IGF Secretariat. If we ask to join a UN forum, then our
reaction and appeal should be to the UN Forum, in this case, to the IGF
Secretariat directly.
 
Even when a serious error is made, our reaction has to be appropriate to
the venue. I think that a proper statement of protest, with a request
for inquiry following UN protocol would have gotten a more serious and
favorable result than a manipulative Web 2.0 reaction. If we want to be
considered international policy stakeholders, we have to be solid,
professional and credible. 

From the outside, it looks like China managed to remove the poster, and
still come out winning points because the Civil Society reaction appears
to be manipulative. ONI also won from this incident, with publicity for
its book. The main loser is Civil Society because it does not look ready
for particpation in serious international policy processes. The incident
may also influence the discussion on the future of the IGF. There are
quite a few important players who see IGF as a deviation/exception to
"normal" diplomacy. With a Web 2.0 reaction, we strengthen arguments to
end this "experiment" in multilateral diplomacy. Again, Civil Society
would be the biggest loser. We lose on all counts. Life is not fair. You
don't get what you deserve, you get what you "negotiate". I do not think
that we negotiated well.

From an "old dog" still trying to learn new tricks.
Best,
Ginger

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091123/ede17fa1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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