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

Sat Feb 11 04:45:13 EST 2012

Hi all,

there is an example where we can refer to. During the PrepComs of the WSIS (202 - 2005), there was a special WSIS Civil Society Bureau (managed by Alain and Louise) which was funded by the overall WSIS budget. This was not a small budget but it enabled CS participation in PrepComs. The elected CS Bureau (about 11 membersrepresenting so-called "CS families") had to manage the applications for CS funding. This was a transparent process. 

The problem now is that the WSIS was part of the regular UN/ITU budget, the IGF is not. The compromise of the "unloved" IGF, reached in Tunis, was that the okay for the IGF was based on the condition that there will be no extra funding from the regular UN budget. 

Okay time has changed and the funding issue is under consideration in the UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG. My position is that we should call for a "mixed funding" on a sustainable basis (some core functions financed by the UN budget, extra voluntary funding from member states and private corporations, including ICANN but also Facebook, Gogle etc. (based on a five year voluntary commitment). This remains a key issue for the forthcming 5th meeting of the group end of February in geneva (just the other week after MAG). 

For the moment Parminders approach to have a two hour "visible walk out" to protest has its merits. But if we do this, we need a more comprehensive approach. A "walk out" has to be embedded into a mix of complementary actions as a letter to the USG, a letter to the IGF Secretariat, a letter to the Chair if the MAG meeting (the Azeri Minister) and a press release. People n Geneva should organize a special press briefing (on Wednesday or Thursday noon) and invite the press people accredited in Geneva. It would make sense also to talk in advance to friendly governments and friendly private corporations which support the CS outcry and to invite them to participate in the press briefing (or at least to give verbal support). 

Best wishes

wolfgang (still in the hospital)

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Miguel Alcaine
Gesendet: Fr 10.02.2012 15:28
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry
Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers]

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> 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> 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
	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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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