AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011

Sat Sep 11 21:23:47 EDT 2010

Dear All,

I find the advocacy for the venues, interesting. I am from Fiji
Islands and found that the Shengan visas relatively easy to acquire. I
know what it's like to be "Searched" and advised me that I needed to
consent to being searched or not fly at all  it was'nt a European
Airport or American Airport but an Australian Airport where I was told
that my forefathers were cannibals...because I wanted to catch my next
flight, I did not make a scene.

Terror and the fear of terror has impact on national policies that
translate into interjurisdictional policy. Sadly sometimes, translate
and carry the weight of some prejudices and biases. Terrorism is
something that affects all of mankind but the manner and not just some
people groups.

Either way from the Pacific, since we are in the Southern Hemisphere,
it would mean that we would travel equal distances either way and
still pay alot.

Maybe, they should have a cost analysis study, complete with
benchmarking air travel costs, identification of stakeholder
partcipation and what cross sectional representative percentage
margins the WSIS would wish represented or deem acceptable and then
make the decision. The study would no doubt be rational, transparent
and whilst people will always have their say but the welfare of the
entire Forum would be taken into consideration as well as considering
how we can equitably share resources etc.

Warm Regards from the  cold  hotel lobby in Vinius,

Sala

On 9/11/10, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As the GAID meeting the other week bounced from room to room @UN HQ, I
> believe Marilyn's warning about how the premium on space at UN HQ may interfere
> with a smooth meeting.
>
> Which does not change Mawaki's hypothesis: ITU wants to be in NY - and UN HQ
> staff/diplomats agreed - because ITU wants visibility and UN diplomat types
> want to learn more about ICTs and development.
>
> Because heads of state/UN ambassadors (finally) realize icts/bband/Internet
> are important for reaching Millennium Development Goals.
>
> A suggested cs strategy: give them what they want.
>
> Like CS's toehold into OECD thanks to CSISAC establishment, let's change NY
> next - if that's where meeting ends up.
>
> Instead of worrying about venue and room logistics headaches, my 2 cents are
> we should fight mainly for multi-stakeholder participation.
>
> Strategic issue is - how far can we push in next phase, a proper
> participatory/cs-inclusive model, not just rhetorically but in practice.
>
> Lee
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Marilyn Cade  [marilynscade at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 3:15 PM
> To: Mawaki Chango ; governance at lists.cpsr.org ; meryem at marzouki.info
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011
>
> Having attended four Action line forums, and supported the consolidation
> into a week in GVA, I wld prefer to keep the correct title - WSIS Action
> Line Forum-- it is after not the WSIS Forum, regardless of the hope of some
> to make it so, and try to turn it into a egic outcome of Tunis than it is.
> Maybe we should focus more intently -- all of us -- on encouraging the other
> three major co facilatators of action lines to stand up and play an equal
> coordinating role and sponsorship role.
> As they were trying to do in the 2010 WSIS 'Action line' Forum in May.
>
> The action lines are about hightlighting  "on ground" efforts, and the
> purpose of the role of facilatators seems to being lost, perhaps accidently
> or ... Perhaps due to expediency... But needs to return.  The last Action
> line forum in GVA in May was a better example of collaboration and spotlight
> sharing across the four UN agencies and had some great examples of successes
> and activities "on ground/national level" relevant to the Action Lines.
>
> I do not support moving to NY Hdqtrs. Would be btr to host at UNESCO, or
> again in GVA.
>
> As to rotating about the world - actually there is benefit to organizing in
> conjunction w the May IGF consultation and CSTD meetings, and that synergy
> gets lost. But of more signficance is losing the purpose of the "action
> lines" themselves, and sacrificing the focus on networking, leveraging best
> practices and sharing and building relationships that can advance the
> achievements in action lines for political agendas.
>
>
> Locating space with multiple rooms, display area, large plen room, etc,
> takes staff time. Rotating actually adds to burden of admintration, eating
> away at resourced that shld focus on identifyong participants for each
> action line....
>
> Having attended events both in GVA at all the UN agencies (by now) and also
> NY UN headquarters, the space, flexibility at headquarters just isn't there.
> It is simply a fact. And not a criticism of UN hdqts. Is a lovely set of
> buildings. Was just there for GAID.
>
> I am concerned about getting a week of suitable space (several rooms) at
> headquarters-- seems overly challenging. Every time I have participated in
> events there, space is at a premium and getting space over five days for
> breakouts, action line sessions simultaneously seems improbable.  Perhaps
> that was not yet factored into the proposal, or perhaps we need to raise the
> concerns.  It is a risk that the shift will change the Sessions  - to make
> this into more of an intergovernmental high level set of speeches. I am not
> confident that will advance the purpose of the Action line Forum.
>
> Marilyn Cade
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:47:04
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; <meryem at marzouki.info>
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011
>
> Yeah... no, ITU involvement in WSIS wasn't an accident. WSIS wouldn't have
> seen the light of day were it not for the ITU's resolution at the 1998
> plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis (which then led to the related UN
> General Assembly's resolution in 2001). And as far as the UN system as a
> whole, ITU is the home and the linchpin of the summit, which is not to say
> other UN orgs./bodies do not make decisions related to WSIS and its
> follow-up in terms of their respective responsibilities. It'd be a little
> bit of stretch to think that because IGF is the summit's most substantial
> outcome, it exhausts or fulfills the whole of WSIS agenda as per its
> intergovernmental origins.
>
>
> So I agree with Meryem that each one of those arrangements has their
> specific goal commanding different strategies. Obviously if ITU wants to see
> the WSIS Forum held at UN-HQ it probably not for the excitement of a visit
> at "the Big Apple" but more likely because they hope to mobilize UN
> resources to achieve something, notwithstanding the price of sacrificing a
> bit of CS participation (in quantity).
>
>
> Let's also not forget that NYC is the single capital where (due to UN) the
> largest diplomatic body from across the world is concentrated or converges
> (sorry, that's not the case for Geneva as some may want to believe). And
> although we're getting used to "multistakeholderism," the UN's GA -- where
> those diplomats convene, discuss, negotiate and vote -- is still the
> ultimate authoritative body to make decisions before anything of a global
> legitimacy (exit, the security council) is enacted in the name of the UN. So
> it may also just be that at a critical juncture when important decisions may
> have to be made by all or a large section of those diplomats about WSIS, it
> is simple pragmatism to secure their participation and a chance for them to
> fully understand the issues (now, that may not justify a *permanent*
> transfer to NYC, see last paragr. below).
>
>
> CS can still do two things: i) strategize in order to get its inclusively
> prepared quality input through, wherever a relevant meeting takes place
> --especially for a crucial one as may be the 2011's WSIS Forum; ii)
> continuously voice the need to take special/additional measures to
> facilitate visas for a global CS to the meetings.
>
>
> Propositions could also be made as a compromise between ITU's current choice
> and Wolfgang's suggestion: 1. alternate every year between the chosen UN
> base and other places around the world; 2. rotate around the world with the
> possibility any year to host it back at UN HQ or in other UN capital if the
> agenda and schedule of international affairs make the venue potentially
> favorable to the Forum's order of business; 3. rotate between UN capitals;
> 4. etcetera.
>
>
> Best,
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info
> <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info> > wrote:
>
>  Le 7 sept. 10 à 08:25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :
>
>
>  ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling
> around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach,
> should stay in traditional places?
>
>  Because, and this is obvious, they are of a different nature and they have
> different objectives.
>
>  - ICANN is a private organization which attendance is mainly corporate
> business organizations, and has the needed money to bring some CS on board
> (seatbelt fastened).
>
>  - IGF is still an UFO (institutionally speaking) which raison d'etre is
> heavily relying on CS (and IGOs). Conversely, CS and IGOs find it the unique
> place where they may rise their profile in the IG and related fields.
>  Both ICANN and IGF, in order to justify the necessity of their existence
> and unicity, *have* to reach out to (or to organize meetings in, at least)
> different countries [on a side note, who can seriously state that IGF 2009
> has changed anything in Egypt re: IG matters?]
>
>  - WSIS Forum is the (recently) institutionalized follow-up to WSIS, which
> was, if I'm not wrong, a UN intergovernmental process led by the ITU (and
> this was by no mean an accident, contrarily to what someone said on this
> list). Since the end of WSIS, well before becoming the "WSIS Forum", it has
> been struggling for its existence and necessity and for taking over the
> other two. Now, what it needs is certainly not to travel around the world,
> but to seat itself as such at the UN headquarters (which is in NYC).
>
>  ICANN showing its own well know problems, and considering the fact that
> whether it travels around the world or not, this doesn't change the essence
> of the organization and its decisions, let's talk about IGF and WSIS Forum:
>
>  The former is more inclusive, but is toothless, the latter is likely to
> mainstream IG issues and make decisions, but is above all an
> intergovernmental process, in pure UN sense.
>  CS may be part of both, but probably not showing the same profile (and
> consequently not the same framing of issues) at each venue. It's not
> necessarily about the height of this profile, but really about its
> orientation (susbtance) and its nature (mainly CSOs or mainly individuals).
>
>  In my opinion, there is the strategic choice. Not in counting CS
> participation from different countries at one venue or the other.
>
>  As regards IGOs, they can survive (in this field) only at IGF.
>
>  Best,
>  Meryem
>
>
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
>  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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
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