[governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Mon Sep 6 18:28:04 EDT 2010
Dear all
Meryem is correct.. this is not just about cost and visas... the
strategic opportunities and challenges are interesting. The fact that
the ITU wants to convene an event in NY while the GA is meeting on the
future of the IGF is probably not a coincidence.
Also keep in mind that the WSIS Forum is primarily about the development
goals of the WSIS, not about IG. I.o.w. is convening it in NY
about "mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system" or simply about the
organisers of the WSIS Forum influencing the decisions made at this
paticular sitting of the General Assembly?
Milton, the event you talk about was the "UN ICT Task Force Global Forum
on Internet Governance". Bill Drake, Karen Banks and I were involved in
the organisation, working with the UN ICT Task Force secretariat. APC
was chair of the policy working group of the Task Force.
It was a good event :) But participation from developing countries was
not that good if you excluded the fairly diverse Task Force membership..
and WGIG people. There was a large ISOC, NRO, ICANN crowd. We worked
very hard to get people there, and there was some funding available to
do so. I think there might have been some Ford Foundation funded event
that coincided... I do remember a large number of US NGOs being present,
e.g. EPIC. Diplo also brought people.. it felt in many ways like a
mini-IGF.
We (through the UN ICT Task Force) also had some funding to commission
discussion documents from people like George Sadowsky, Norbert Klein,
Carlos Afonso, Adam Peake and others.
We also lost people who were not granted visas...
UNDP still had a fairly substantial ICT for Development programme at the
time, and being NY-based that added to the energy of the event.
Anriette
> As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let
> me point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was
> more widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I think
> you can count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you hold it in
> NY.
>
>
>
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM
> To: Sivasubramanian M
> Cc: Governance List
> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011
>
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
>
> Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action
> lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key
> organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation of many
> stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the fact that
> other WSIS related activities take place around the same dates. This
> has enabled participation by many because it took into account the
> limited time, financial and human resources of many across stakeholder
> groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 in New York risks
> decreasing participation because it would require extensive travel for
> those participating in the other WSIS related activities in May in
> Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other stakeholders
> indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely difficult for
> many particularly from developing countries. This would in turn
> decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS
> action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead
> facilitator, UNESCO in Paris."
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…?
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/9/6 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>
> Hi,
>
> We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the
> least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be
> held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about
> mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I
> have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the
> WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in evidence
> on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an "expert" rather
> than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS
> people do wish to attend, one would think there's probably greater
> synergies and cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in Geneva
> during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming those
> remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other
> areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is
> obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested
> enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I
> suppose one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this
> might fit in with larger discussions about the management of
> ICT-related activities connected to DESA…
>
> Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we
> can use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus
> being difficult to achieve?
>
>
>
>
> If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels
> could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which
> would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made.
>
>
>
>
>
> There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair
> and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the
> process.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is
> convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics
> hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts
> that may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva
> is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too.
> >
> > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a
> mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would
> establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd
> (developing?) location.
> >
> > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult
> to get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't
> make much sense to me. In principle it should be easier.
> There's certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around
> already looking for things to talk and write about.
> >
> > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some
> success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location
> decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual
> choices.
> >
> > Lee
> > ________________________________________
> > From: "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM
> > To: wsis-info at itu.int
> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011
> >
> > Dear friends
> >
> > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to
> New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and
> bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid
> that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the
> involvement of civil society and the academic community as
> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of
> civil society organisations, including represenations of
> organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva
> or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would
> create additional costs and logistic problems for them which
> would result in lower participation of civil society
> organisations. This would certainly undermine the
> multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process.
> >
> > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be
> that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the
> shadow of more important political and security issues which
> dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS
> Forum would be just "another conference" and would have
> difficulties to get the needed public attention.
> >
> > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union
> has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the
> Hungarian Presidency in Budapest.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> 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
> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org
APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org
Thank you for helping make APC what it is today!
¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy!
Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui!
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list