[governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011

[Parkop Kisokau]

Hi,

While it may be strategic for WSIS to be held in NYC due to its proximity to
the UN, with the idea that the closest location will hit the target the
hardest.

We can achieve both, reaching the WSIS objective and wider participation by
choosing countries with less Visa difficulties unlike like the IGF in
Schengen countries and now proposal for WSIS in NYC would not encourage
greater participation from developing countries. How would we promote
multi-stakeholderism if this is the approach we are taking now?

Would we still achieve our objective if WSIS was held in Hong Kong, Bangkok,
or other less visa difficult countries with wider participation?

Parkop Kisokau
USTB - BJ CN.


On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:47 AM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi
> I enjoy coming to Europe so I like the idea of Geneva. Having said that,
> New York may also be consideration for the centrality it offers.   As an
> added perspective, I have been serving on another Commission at the UN for
> the past 10 years and despite having our conferences in the midst of
> blizzard season in February and March we have had attendance from all
> regions ranging from 5000-10000 people , One special year we even had 15000
> if I'm not mistaken. In fact if anything the African pacific countries
> attendance is always strong example . So notwithstanding visa situation UN
> NY was and is still a popular venue.
> Shaila Rao Mistry
>
> **
> *From:* Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> *Sent:* Mon, September 6, 2010 2:38:05 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011
>
> If our priority is inclusion and a wide range of participation (for me it
> is), then I think the main argument is indeed ease and cost of travel and
> visas. However, I think we should ask for WHOM it is going to be easier. NY
> is easier for me, but I am not a priority for inclusion. I would like to see
> a stakeholder and geographic breakdown of the attendance list for the '2004
> WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more widely attended' that Milton
> mentions, as I wonder if this attendance included a wide participation of
> Africa, Caribbean, Pacific Asian and South American stakeholders, or if it
> was logically centered on US and US-based participants. Is this data
> available?
>
> Is it possible to do a poll or other sounding to find out which (NY or
> Geneva) venue would result in a wider (theoretical) range of inclusion,
> particularly for less represented regions?
>
> Best, gp
>
>
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> *The latest from Diplo...*
> http://DISCUSS.diplomacy.edu is a space for discussing ideas and concepts
> from Diplo’s teaching and research activities. Our activities focus on
> three main areas: Internet governance, diplomacy, and global governance. In
> September, we DISCUSS: a) network neutrality: hype and reality, b) the IGF
> experience: what can policy makers learn from the IGF, and c) the history of
> the Internet. Let us know if you have suggestions about ideas and concepts
> that should be discussed.
>
> On 9/6/2010 4:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>  I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit self-serving.
> Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay there. I don’t see why IGC
> should endorse that as a “pro civil society” position. The only argument of
> any merit is the visa difficulty issue – if, as Tracy calls into question,
> that difference still exists.
>
>
>
> I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS and
> IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good to move it
> away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or Vancouver or Hong Kong
> or Panama matters less to me, although of course NYC is most convenient to
> me.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva seems
> false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the 300-mi radius
> of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also Toronto) than anywhere
> else in the world.
>
>
>
> 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<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
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100907/e45c3a54/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

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