[governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Hi all

Katitza really was very sick but bravely continued to work hard 
throughout her time here. Well done Katitza. Y


On 25/11/10 10:40, katitza wrote
> My impression, at the end of the CSTD meeting is  that there is a better understanding, between some of the few govs present in the meeting, that many of the  IGF people do like the IGF, but we  want to see further improvements.
>
> The IGF has been successful, and based on those experience we should build upon it to make further improvement. During the meeting I keep reminding myself that we should  keep in the records what we have achieved (including remote participation - which is also essential for future messages/ recommendations), and we should keep pushing for making further improvement.
>
> Note 1: we need to remember that G77 has different diverse voices, and civil society might have some govs. reps there that we can talk with, as well as we can deal with some  developed countries! I think we can pla a good role on this. Of course as long as we know who are the reps govs. In each country, and that we can approach them.
>
> Katitza on my way back home, and with very negative thoughts on the overall discussion/meetings. I have been with fever and flu during the meeting, and with less energy than usual.
>    
Yes, we should remember that there are diverse opinions among developing 
country governments. Teasing out this diversity is not going to happen 
if we continue to project this perspective of the IGF being an 
unqualified success. I  agree with Milton when he says:

"I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF. 
The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is 
inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw 
when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who 
believed - quite erroneously, it turned out - that one must either 
defend it uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN 
takeover of the Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the 
same pattern being recreated here. Why?"

This defensive approach is driving precisely this polarisation. 
Countries that criticize the IGF are not engaging with the improvement 
discussion in a constructive manner. The polarisation was very clearly 
'visible' in yesterday's meeting as most developing country governments 
made a decision to either not attend, or not to speak. Only one 
developing country spoke during the entire day: Brazil.  Well done Brazil.

The sad and rather scary thing is that what should be a constructive 
discussion on improving the IGF has become so politicised.

I feel very disappointed in the lack of participation from the 
'critical' governments. My government (South Africa) was one of them. 
Who gave them a mandate to do this?  Certainly not me as a citizen.

At the same time I find the persistent praise of the IGF evangelists 
counter-productive. They are filling the record, and the transcripts of 
consultations. But they are not succeeding in making the political gains 
we need so badly to protect and extend civil society participation in 
policy spaces.

I propose we stick to the fundamentals by not compromising on civil 
society participation, but also being open about the weaknesses of the 
IGF and creative about improvements.  Many of the improvements being 
discussed will strengthen CS participation, and can make the IGF more 
relevant to CS, particularly CS in developing countries.

Anriette





____________________________________________________________
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