[governance] Civil Society participation, my opinion

Mon Nov 23 08:56:33 EST 2009

Lisa and Ginger,

I like it wide open. I believe that when there is a need for a group stance it will be there. This has been proven.

But in the moral, civil and ethical part of our world you cannot have it both ways. Once a woman has taken on the role as a representative of a group in a certain area she is done with the private personal opines.  They must be. Leadership is a brutal lonely and self sacrificing place. The giving of oneself and the leaving behind of certain rights is honorable.
It should not be tarnished by those who want their cake and want to eat it also. Even your post here Ginger is probably a double standard. You cannot speak for the community and speak for yourself.  Many who are nominated decline for this reason.

Milton is a good example, of what not to do. Does he speak for Milton? For Syracuse? For the NCUC? For IG?  Who knows what and when?

You have got to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

--- On Mon, 11/23/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society participation, my opinion
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Lisa Horner" <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 1:04 PM

Hi Lisa and all,

Lisa, you make an important point, and I agree with you entirely. Ian and the IGC acted appropriately and I am sure we will do a proper institutional follow-up. I wasn't even there: I am giving one "remote participation" opinion.

My points were meant as a comment on negotiating technique, strategy and appearances, from the "big picture" as seen from outside; from a long-range view. The "amorphous civil society stakeholder group" is very powerful. I think that we can benefit from analyzing what we do both as the IGC and as individual members of civil society, to maximize our impact on all levels in the future. I agree that we should use the tools available to us, including Web 2.0 tools when appropriate, taking advantage of their strength, but avoiding apparent manipulation for media splash and immediate effect while possibly sacrificing the long-range credibility of civil society in general.

In this particularly venue, I think civil society might have wielded its power better by following diplomatic channels more forcefully and formally, and being strictly objective in the Web 2.0 reaction.

Thanks for your excellent response.
Best,
Ginger

Lisa Horner wrote: 

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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091123/b8616e81/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