[governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011

[Lee W McKnight]

Meryem,

1st thanks for focusing also on strategic aspects.  

My point is folks really in the game already thought about the relative convenience for different factions of locating WSIS in this or that city - and decided for -strategic -  reasons to hold it at UN HQ. I suspect.

Where yeah important things like security are discussed. Which increasingly means cybersecurity. 

IGC going on record as opposing New York...well if there was a strategic reason like we are against the Secretary General ('s staff) paying more attention to IG, then fine. 

But if we are just being asked to take sides in a cyber-power struggle between UN HQ and other UN organizations....like everyone's favorite the ITU...well no offense to my ITU pals, but I'll take that seat closer to the (UN) SecGen thank you very much.  

Lee  

PS: As an aside, the GAID Prepcom at UN HQ last Wednesday-Thursday seemed reasonably well attended by folks coming from all over.  



.
________________________________________
From: Meryem Marzouki [meryem at marzouki.info]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 6:03 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011

Le 6 sept. 10 à 21:53, Ian Peter a écrit :

Looks good to me – replace ICC with IGC and we have it!

Ian, you should be more careful. Just imagine someone quoting your 'cri du coeur' (hartfelt appeal) without mentioning its object;))
Actually, this object - ICC's statement - is itself a 'cri du coeur' from the business sector. Not an appeal to consider its poor situation (business cannot face the cost of travelling to NYC? Not!), but rather an appeal to stop this clear taking over.
I find it pretty odd - or significant - to see the discussion turned into a comparative analysis of flight costs and visa burden, instead of an analysis of the real point, made by Lee: "A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system".
+1, then. Especially given the coincidence in the dates of the 65th session of the UN General Assembly (which should decide on the continuation of the IGF) and of the result announcement for WSIS Forum 2011 venue.
Not sure I would back 100% the remaining of Lee's statement, though ("as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location.").

In any case, this has a political meaning. Now an interesting discussion would start from asking whether this meaning would be a good sign or not, in what sense and for whom.

Best,
Meryem


Ian Peter


________________________________
From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:23:19 +0200
To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
Cc: Governance List <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
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<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake<http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake>
***********************************************************



________________________________
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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

____________________________________________________________
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