[governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers]
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Fri Feb 10 03:26:54 EST 2012
Dear Parminder and all
On 10/02/12 07:47, parminder wrote:
> Hi All
>
> We have reached a rather unacceptable, and I should say, shameful,
> situation vis a vis civil society participaiton in MAG whereby it is now
> a regular thing that CS participation is not funded. Such
> multistakeholderism (MSism) should be rejected out of hand. It fuels and
> justifies the doubts expressed by those who think that MSism of IG is
> just a ploy to get more seats on the table for the already powerful. CS
> cannot be represented just by people who can spend their own resources
> or live in nearby places of the North. We as CS must call this bluff,
> even if we lose some prized positions. We can then at least fight from
> the outside, as CS has often/ largely done till we get an honourable and
> acceptable arrangement to (also) participate from the inside.
I agree with this position in principle, but at the same time 'fighting'
from the outside is an extremely risky strategy.
If all non-governmental stakeholders were to form a common position on
support for participation we would stand a stronger change, but, the
other stakeholder groups have more resources, and are by and large
better organised. Nevertheless I would like to propose as ask them to do
a joint letter with us on the importance of supporting and facilitating
effective multi-stakeholder participation.
I completely agree with Parminder that we cannot indefinitely continue
to give a process credibility when we are not able to participate
effectively.
Lack of funding for CS participation is a UN-wide issue. APC has had to
finance our own participation in other UN spaces as well, such as the
Committee for the Advancement of Women and also the Human Rights
Council. The UN is in financial difficulties, and civil society
participation is one of many areas that are suffering as a result.
The difference with the MAG is that it members are appointed by the UNSG
and expected to work hard and contribute to making a UN-linked process
stronger. The same applies to the CSTD WG. In this instance the UN must
take responsibility for making sure that bodies that it constitutes
function effectively.
>
> I think we should just tell them, either fund CS participation at least
> in the core committees etc of the IGF (which is generally done for all
> the UN system) or we are not interested to lend 'them' the credibility
> of CS participation in the system.
Agree that we should convey this to the SG as the person that appoints
the MAG.
>
> On a connected note, it bothers me a lot that inside the WG on
> Improvements to the IGF, not many of us are too keen to push for
> ensuring a regular UN budget for the IGF/ MAG etc. (Those old ghostly
> notions of UN will take over the IGF, as if corporate and other partisan
> interested party funds controlling it is better!) It also bothers me
> that this issue, and in fact, in general, issues of IGF improvements
> seem not to bother many of us enough to bring on a spirited discussion,
> and putting up strong clear positions that defend the interests of the
> marginalised, whom we should most centrally be representing
Parminder is correct in that we have not had a common position, even
among CS, on UN funding for the IGF/MAG. Most governments, as well as
the tech and business communities oppose the idea.
Personally I don't think it is realistic, or desirable to have the IGF
funded entirely, or mostly from the UN. But I agree strongly with
Parminder that there does need to be some regular support from the UN.
In part this exists through the in-kind support given to the
secretariat. But this is not enough.
A few areas of ongoing funding would make a big difference:
* MAG functioning and participation - For example, a regular amount made
available every year through local UNDP offices to support participation
of non-governmental stakeholders who don't have the resources to travel
to meetings.
* The salary of the executive coordinator, so that there can be
continuity and leadership at secretariat level.
In one of my inputs to the CSTD WG I had proposed a 30% UN 40%
additional (voluntary is their term) funding. But I think only Parminder
showed any support for that... it is simply not an idea that business,
or governments, or the UN itself is going to support - for various
reasons.
Here is the text from the chairman's summary which will frame this
discussion at the next CSTD WG on IGF Improvements meeting. It is good
to note that he included this text, which was submitted by CS. He must
be commended for his respect for CS input.
"Explore UN general funding for the core structure and functions of the
IGF, including improving participation and outreach, in addition to
welcoming voluntary private funds."
and
"Consider a model whereby the SG's office provides (1) in-kind support
(2) that this in-kind support is stated clearly (e.g. communications,
office space, etc.) and given an estimated dollar value in IGF budgets
(3) that some core operational expenditure, e.g. the salary of the
Executive Coordinator be funded through the UN."
Anriette
>
> If this is multistakeholderism, then its critics are right, I think - a
> cover for greater corporate presence in political spaces....
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Friday 10 February 2012 06:58 AM, YJ Park wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi YJ
>>
>> Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend.
>>
>> Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people
>> who could stand in for the absent members at this point. Wouldn't
>> it be better for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM
>> a letter expressing concern about CS' underrepresentation and
>> asking that remedial action be allowed, options x and y?
>>
>> It is worth noticing many CS folks would not be able to attend the MAG
>> meeting with many reasons. If our IGC coordintors have enough
>> resources to address this issue with more institutional basis to IGF
>> secretariat, I believe it would serve us better. Thank you for your
>> suggestion!
>>
>>
>> As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all
>> women, BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic
>> diversity than letting those who'll be here participate under
>> whatever rubric.
>>
>>
>> BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to
>> each stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole.
>>
>>
>> I was not aware that the principle of gender/geographical diversity
>> was applied to MAG as a whole not to each stakeholder. As pointed out
>> here, I support your proposal that such principle should
>> be widely implemented to each stakeholder group's MAG selection
>> process as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> YJ
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Bill and all,
>> >
>> > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil
>> society
>> > in this process.
>> > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the
>> > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey.
>> > However, I cannot...
>> >
>> > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate
>> > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As
>> > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical
>> > diversity/gender issues.
>> >
>> > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my difficulty
>> > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to
>> delegate my
>> > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted.
>> >
>> > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a responsible
>> > manner, it would be appreciated.
>> >
>> > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance,
>> > YJ
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/9/12, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will
>> have written
>> >> to the MAG list.
>> >>
>> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet
>> >>
>> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the
>> host, the Vice
>> >> Minister from Azerbaijan
>> >>
>> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this
>> meeting per
>> >> Sha's letter.
>> >>
>> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November
>> >>
>> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil
>> society would be
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai
>> >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad
>> >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria
>> >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette
>> >> Ms. Park, Y. J.
>> >> Ms. Primo, Natasha
>> >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza
>> >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela
>> >>
>> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF
>> site. It's a
>> >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It
>> would be
>> >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the
>> >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be
>> sensible to
>> >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting
>> >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to
>> be able to
>> >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Bill
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Avri:
>> >>>
>> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from
>> Azerbaijan. Or
>> >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all
>> remains in
>> >>> flux.
>> >>>
>> >>> Wolfgang:
>> >>>
>> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question
>> is: Will Sha
>> >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands
>> of the next
>> >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His
>> terms ends in
>> >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His
>> relationship
>> >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM
>> was reelected
>> >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does
>> it mean? Be
>> >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is
>> not so bad
>> >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and
>> it will
>> >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) .
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
-------------- 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