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

Sat Feb 11 07:54:24 EST 2012

Avri/ All

I am proposing a token/ symbolic walk out, with walk-out-ers returning 
after an hour or so. This is to start setting the stage for a possible 
larger boycott if things simply do not improve. I do not know what else 
you have in mind for setting the stage foe a possible symbolic walkout 
after a few months. I dont see anyone taking any notice of anything less 
then what I propose (will be great even if they take note of this).

The problem is that in the typical market/ busies thinking dominated IG 
environment, funding participation looks like a 'well-of course' kind of 
a side issue, not a central and necessary feature of improving 
participation (MSism). And we need to do something which attempts to 
make the point clear that it is a necessary feature of improving 
participation, and the whole thing can be considered a sham without it. 
Only something like a symbolic walk out may make some people start 
thinking, well, they seem to be rather agitated, so lets see what they 
are trying to convey etc....

At the GW on IGF Improvements, we tried to be as dramatic as possible, 
read out a very forceful statement, and this was a small group of which 
we were designated members, and the exclusions of those who could not 
attend was also starkly clear. But no one took notice, no one really 
responded or even sympathised and proceedings went off like normal. 
Point is; they dont think it to be central MS issue. We must place it there.

Perhaps most importantly, if we can have some action in the MAG/ open 
consultations there is a chance that this issue can be strongly brought 
up in the WG on IGF improvements, and the CS members present make it a 
non negotiable thing that the final report clearly writes down in its 
report that CS participation in MAG etc has to be ensured with regular 
UN budget and long term commitments of voluntary funds. If this thing 
does not go into the report now then CS will always be at the mercy on 
how the things stand at the moment. This fact brings special urgency to 
the issue

(When i said time for letters is over, i meant time for 'just' writing 
letters is over.)

Parminder

On Saturday 11 February 2012 05:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts.  As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken.  But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built.  Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts.
>
> I do not think the time for letters is ever over.  Even if a walk out is being prepared
>
> And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for.
>
> Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about.  The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there.  Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time.  I think a walk out has to be of the consultation.
>
>
> If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make.  Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention.  First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't.
>
> avri
>
> On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote:
>
>    
>> 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>  wrote:
>>> In message<CAPcSPKWiFB_N948B9oxgSC2tCqsvvCN=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
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120211/48365e52/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