[governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers]

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Feb 11 01:15:02 EST 2012


Hi All

While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some 
have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this 
stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing 
situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. 
This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive 
rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive 
(actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive 
participation not merely a formal right to participate.

In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become 
more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole 
business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS 
tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither 
remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be 
happening in this MS-ist  avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism).

Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was 
surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS 
participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We 
read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat 
of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had 
recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and 
therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision 
were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the 
problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So 
much for their commitment to MSism!

Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding 
issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) 
is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered 
as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In 
response, we must make our stand clear that funding for *CS 
participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that 
doesnt include this. *

And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, 
is as follows:

The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 
hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in 
this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their 
business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is 
is not multistakeholder; the *most* important part of non-government 
stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the 
situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider 
their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process.

If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open 
consultations.

Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting 
we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that 
the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds 
(/plus/ long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS 
participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as 
a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can 
also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point.

(We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some 
press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.)

Parminder


On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS 
> representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial 
> issue for participation in the IGF process.
>
> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under 
> Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS 
> participation regardless of being in the MAG.
>
> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the 
> involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN 
> system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS 
> colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG.
>
> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its 
> financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN 
> regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible.
>
> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all 
> actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can 
> present a better case from inside the process.
>
> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way 
> respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before 
> making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to 
> advocate its positions.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> Disclaimer
> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my 
> employer or any other institution.
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry 
> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com 
> <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
>
>     In message
>     <CAPcSPKWiFB_N948B9oxgSC2tCqsvvCN=5VgEmfoYdV3K_nha9Q at mail.gmail.com <mailto:5VgEmfoYdV3K_nha9Q at mail.gmail.com>>,
>     at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe
>     <baudouin.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com>>
>     writes
>
>         Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it
>         should be
>         noted that civil society plays a major role in the
>         implementation of ICT
>         projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime.
>
>
>     This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free
>     advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for
>     travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just
>     Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues.
>
>     Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a
>     conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't
>     currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of
>     (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World).
>     -- 
>     Roland Perry
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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/20120211/34448732/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


More information about the Governance mailing list