[governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<AANLkTik7=mMKrhghDSWk36Q3n3WCHdg=f3EwVn6TrX9Q at mail.gmail.com>, at 
16:17:33 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Bertrand de La Chapelle 
<bdelachapelle at gmail.com> writes
>WSIS accreditation is outdated (Facebook and Twitter could not 
>participate if they wanted to ??)
>
>But they can join a trade/lobbying association which has a seat at the 
>table, or there are other ways to join the 'club'. I was at more than 
>one OECD meeting last year where YouTube were sat at the table, for 
>example.
>
>I do see the point. Of course there is always the solution of using a 
>sort of proxy : having some accredited participants in the WSIS serving 
>as umbrella for any actor in their stakeholder group that is not 
>formally accredited. Could be ISOC, APC or any other CS entity for CS 
>actors; and ICC Basis or any other trade association for business actors. 
>
>But this is at best a patch. Not to mention that it would make these 
>organizations as gate-keepers, something they may not want. And how 
>would people speak once inside the room ? Should they mention their 
>real organization or the one that "accredited" them ?

You do need the right fit, and the right protocols for that. And yes it 
is a patch. I often see people, even on government delegations, who I 
know are not what's generally understood to be diplomats and are 
sometimes well known to be employed in other sectors in their day-job.

>Remember the attempts by some well-intentioned governments (Switzerland 
>for instance) during WSIS, when they included CS in their delegations 
>and nobody knew who these participants were speaking on behalf of. 

Unfortunately, I was not involved in WSIS at all. I have to find out 
what happened by reading the output and talking to those who were there.

>The IGF (and ICANN by the way) has established a practice that works 
>(in spite of all odds) : allowing any concerned actor to take part in 
>the policy-shaping. It is this positive practice that should spread, 
>instead of seeing the principle of accreditation crawling back into the >IGF

Agreed. Although in the meetings we are complaining about currently, 
it's more the governance of the IGF (and the governance of a potential 
Enhanced CoOperation process) that's not multi-stakeholder enough. And 
even ICANN and IGF have episodes behind locked doors (eg board meetings 
and MAG) although there's a trend for ever-increasing transparency and 
opportunity for open intervention. Did I hear speakers from the floor at 
one of last week's GAC sessions, for example?
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t