[governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011

Tue Sep 7 21:56:34 EDT 2010

Without the intention to extend this debate, I would vote for Vancouver 
Canada is easier to get Visa  than US, Vancouver is cheaper than the other
two cities, and people from Asia and Latin America will have less difficulty
to attend ( I am afraid the distance for Africans will be  a problem, but
the cost and the visa may compensate) 

All the best 

 Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend

 Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8

São Paulo  Brasil 

Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253

Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 6:38 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
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 Diplos 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 dont 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. 

Wolfgangs 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] 
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_F
orum_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
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100907/97dc21ef/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