[governance] Was: Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers
Baudouin SCHOMBE
b.schombe at gmail.com
Fri Sep 10 11:01:23 EDT 2010
Hello dear all,
I support the arguments of Wolf, adding that if the WSIS I and II have been
successful, in large part with the private sector and civil society.
Discredit these actors, this means that we discredited the work that was
done during the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society.
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
2010/9/10 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
> Mawaki, is this the post you were referring to? It is helpful, but more
> data would be appreciated. Thanks to those who send info.
>
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, *Wolfgang* wrote:
>
> Dear list
>
> I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the *IGC* raises its
> voice in this case.
>
> My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to
> cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the
> principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy
> processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence
> non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues
> and decision making.
>
> This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the Tunis
> Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in
> particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in
> contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance
> of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big
> step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial
> work the CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the
> WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and
> handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the
> Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the
> UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a
> "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It emerged as
> the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were
> unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of
> many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders).
>
> However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing
> power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007
> where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of
> non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of
> these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese
> delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term
> "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a
> "used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva
> 2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for
> international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of
> "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral
> convention" are only governments.
>
> The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first
> (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later taken for
> granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not
> the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send you
> to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop
> global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The
> so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy
> development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the archives
> and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to
> draft a resolution with a follow up.
>
> I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the
> planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also
> by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the
> Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments (and
> unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget
> security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher
> efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to
> silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do
> not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend.
>
> The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also hundreds of
> "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental
> stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International
> Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an
> elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is
> officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can
> do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. You
> can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes
> several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to
> speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or
> lobby) delegates.
>
> With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and
> transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It
> re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors.
> It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were
> removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions
> ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten
> PrepComs to change this.
>
> This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the
> planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three
> intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent
> preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on
> the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs
> relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU
> when he was asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism".
>
> During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS
> Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked officially
> to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which
> emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less
> disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of
> "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under
> fire.
>
> I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and
> activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger
> political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need
> beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to
> find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have
> permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND
> macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly
> governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a
> certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay
> united.
>
> And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet
> Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the
> Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of
> the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy.
>
> Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting
> times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the 2010s.
>
> Best wishes
>
> *Wolfgang*
>
>
>
> 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 9/10/2010 7:30 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> Ginger:
> I seem to remember Wolfy posting a refresher here a while ago with a wealth
> of information about this coalition's genesis (I'd say within the last 12 to
> 24 months, but I wouldn't bet on my time memory about this). I hope the
> subject line was explicit and specific enough for you to spot it if your
> search his posts to this list, plus maybe one or two other related keywords.
>
> Mawaki
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wolfgang:
>> I think this is an excellent idea, and appropriate especially in the
>> opening session. However, I am having a hard time finding the 'history of
>> the IGC', although I did find a link to the original page. (
>> http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Civil_Society_Internet_Governance_Caucus)
>>
>> Can anyone give us a summary, data, facts or links to IGC history? Test
>> your memories!
>>
>> thanks! Ginger
>>
>> On 9/10/2010 2:18 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>> Hi everybody, hi Ginger and Jeremy
>>
>> this is perfect. And it positions the IGC as a key voice of civil society in IG in a right way among the other main stakeholders. If you go to the list of speakers in both the opening and closing ceremony the indirect message is: The IGC is THE CS/IG platform.
>>
>> I recommend both to Ginger and Jeremy to give one or two paragraphs to the history of the IGC so that new people in the IGF community understand where the IGC comes from, what it is and what the role could be in the future.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Fra: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org <jeremy at ciroap.org>]
>> Sendt: to 09-09-2010 03:24
>> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Emne: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers
>>
>>
>> The results are as follows.. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making.
>>
>> I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them.
>>
>> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen).
>>
>> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML):
>>
>> Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers?
>> Answer Count Percentage
>> Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78%
>> Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88%
>> Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12%
>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97%
>> Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00%
>> Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59%
>> Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12%
>> Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28%
>> Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00%
>> Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78%
>>
>>
>> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate.
>>
>>
>> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular.
>>
>>
>> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question:
>>
>>
>> What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations?
>> Answer Count Percentage
>> Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00%
>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78%
>> Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69%
>> Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60..94%
>> Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12%
>> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19%
>> Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50%
>> Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53%
>> Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75%
>> Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91%
>> Other 10 7.81%
>>
>> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers:
>>
>>
>> * Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)]
>> * An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)]
>> * Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)]
>> * All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j).
>>
>>
>> The other six are more or less novel:
>>
>>
>> * ICANN review and IANA contract
>> * Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG
>> * Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet
>> * Importance of an open and accessible Internet
>> * A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level)
>> * Free Software - Free Knowledge
>>
>>
>> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process".
>>
>> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 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/20100910/212db06a/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list