[governance] Embedded CS

Tue Dec 18 13:00:51 EST 2012

I keep hearing about trip costs, civil society, and African or developing nations. I live in a very affluent part of the world, Canada. There is no way I can afford to go things like WCIT either. Civil Society has a hard time participating no matter where they come from. There are many other barriers as well. If some CS members have costs reimbursed how are they picked? Do they have to be a member of a recognized organization? Will a lottery of some sort be used to pick random CS members who apply to attend? CS members have many different viewpoints. How will it be ensured that all CS member viewpoints are heard?

I agree there needs to be a way for CS participation but just figuring out who this means and how they will contribute may be as hard as getting consensus was at WCIT :)

Kerry Brown

From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr<mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr<mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr>>
Date: Tuesday, 18 December, 2012 9:48 AM
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>, "'\"Kleinwächter Wolfgang\"'" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com<mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>>
Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, 'Avri Doria' <avri at ella.com<mailto:avri at ella.com>>
Subject: [governance] Embedded CS

Bonjour to all

I'm on the same line as Michael as far as "embedded CS" -i.e. CS members in national delegations- representativity is concerned. What we do need is an independent and competent CS members that have roots in their communities or orgs, and ow feedback to them. I know how participation for our African friends in the WSIS process is difficult mostly due to financial reasons. That's why a part of CS has always struggled for the WSIS organizers (in fact UN agencies) to create a fund that would be able at least to afford the trips costs and possibly add a kind of "perdiem" for CS delegates during the WSIS sessions. Here is the true "N-S divide" and unless we find a solution for bridging this one I wonder if we'd be able to consider the "digital divide" in DCs ans especially in Africa.

Second point : in the previous mail Wolfgang wrote

< the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing procedures CS can participate only via national delegations.>
I can't agrree with this point of view. IMHO, the heart of the problem is that the ITU is a CS-hostile institution. It is open to the private sector (680 private enterprises, corporations and institutes are its "Sector members") but not to CS orgs ... unless they pay expensive fees and accept to be "Associated members" participating in one of its specific Working Groups. The ultimate paradox is perfect when you consider that the same ITU is the UN-designated leader for a MSH-labelled UN process !
That's why as soon as the very beginning of the WSIS I'd asked for the ITU to open itself to the CS orgs that are working in areas close to the ITU scope of functions, especially in the ICT/Telecom development sector. Unfortunately I missed any support from the WSIS CS representatives for this proposition. In the meantme, a handful of rich CS organizations were able to afford some 4000 FS for being an Associated Member in the Development sector (ITU-D) and even some 11 000 FS in the ITU-R or ITU-T sector ! In my proposal to the WSIS I suggested that an asking CS org be an Associated member in return of their expertise and contribution to ITU's activities, thus justifying their free of charge membership. To my suggestion for giving the ICT/Telecom competent CS orgs an Associated member status, the ITU Development Bureau Director and  current ITU SG answered  "no politics in the ITU" (see Annuaire suisse de politique du developpement 2003, page 120 - 121).

That's why CS is to stay firmly questioning an "open" ITU as the prerequisite for any form of multistakeholder approach/participation in the WSIS process and moreover in the IGF.

Conversely, if CS were an ITU insider ("I have a dream" ...), the WCIT could have reached a much better outcome .

Best regards

Jean-Louis fullsack

> Message du 17/12/12 11:18
> De : "michael gurstein"
> A : "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "McTim"
> Copie à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "'Avri Doria'"
> Objet : RE: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post
>
> 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<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Suresh Ramasubramanian;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> im Auftrag von Suresh
> Ramasubramanian
> Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; michael gurstein
> Cc: ; 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" 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>
> [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<mailto: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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121218/e76c1ccd/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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