[governance] Reply to Milton's blog post
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 05:31:14 EST 2012
Thanks for this Michael.
The point about MSG is what constitutes valid representation? At present
the situation is an MSG (at IGF) that is non-binding (and even there
there are taboos!), so the quesion becomes, if MSG is the format, how to
institutionalise this into decision making (i.e. from representation,
which is what we have, to deliberation), and will equity/legitimacy be
part of the formulation of participation between Public Interest groups
and corporations (including astro-turfies).
On participation, MSG or national delegation participation, for poor
countries the situation may be similar in both instances. For advanced
countries, what ought to be clearer is that the state is pretty the site
of contest of different vested interests (RIAA and the ICTs - which are
not "resolved" but play out in various scenarios differently, and other
more public interest civil society - some of whom are not as close to
national officials as others). The mixed approach seems to have lots of
merit and perhaps processes for this need to be borne in mind, perhaps
with checks and balances (bearing in mind the scholastics of the single
rooters vs the multiple rooters/"legitimacy" crowds)... be interesting
to see this teased out a little more, as in Curran's posts for instance...
I might just add that decision making MSG, as a form of international
cooporation at the UN, looks to be more of a challenge than legitimizing
CIR governance... but that is perhaps just me...
Riaz
On 2012/12/17 12:18 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Good points Wolfgang and McTim however they seem to be somewhat in tension
> with each other...
>
> McTim quite correctly indicates that the ITU cannot be considered as MS
> suggesting (I believe) that such a close linking of CS with a national
> delegation might not be appropriate in a "true MS".
>
> Meanwhile Wolfgang suggests the problem here as being that LDC's may not
> have the resources to bring CS along (suggesting that the relationship
> between CS and national delegations is perhaps an on-going and desireable
> mode). However (he goes on) it might be also desireable (possible) to have
> a true MS consultation/negotiation where CS is participating both as part of
> national delegations and a "procedure which allow(s) CS to participate
> independent from their national governments (and waving the fees)".
>
> I'm wondering at concepts and definitions here... If we accept that a part
> (at least) of the definition of CS is that it is the group that (sees itself
> at least) as supporting the public interest and thus in global MS fora as
> presumably supporting a/the "global public interest", and if we understand
> that national delegations to global deliberations would by definition be
> supporting "national" interests then how would it be possible for those
> (self-identifying and publicly identified) as CS to be members of national
> delegations in global (or national) MS deliberations.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:37 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria
> Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post
>
> HI,
>
> the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing
> procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very
> small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is
> widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to
> invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a
> governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states
> and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can
> tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact
> that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to
> become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another
> government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure
> in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend
> national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU
> conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not
> only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens
> the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate
> independent from their national governments (and waving the fees).
>
> This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the
> forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and
> lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh
> Ramasubramanian
> Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Avri Doria
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post
>
>
> What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't
> participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's
> viewpoint?
>
> If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it
> is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed
> messages.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Avri and all,
>
>
>
> I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb
> Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting
> experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me
> that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by
> multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in
> these multi-stakeholder processes.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a
> good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have
> a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government
> that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department
> of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being
> either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so
> that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby.
> They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're
> representing national interests.
>
>
>
> So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one
> is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in
> these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going
> forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the
> industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that
> informed our positions more broadly on a national basis.
>
>
>
> A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in
> our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real
> benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece
> of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do
> outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're
> able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players,
> and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our
> delegation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post
>
>
>
>
>
> On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote:
>
>
>
> > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not
> do
>
> > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure
> that
>
> > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had
> nothing
>
> > to answer to them.
>
>
>
>
>
> i think that most of the non government types on the delegations
> found their funding elsewhere.
>
>
>
> i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but
> perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any?
>
>
>
> they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere.
>
>
>
> and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State
> delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option.
>
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus..org/info/governance
> <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list