[governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers]
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Feb 11 22:42:00 EST 2012
Robert
On Saturday 11 February 2012 07:08 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> I don't agree with a walk out over the lack of financial support to
> participate.
I only asked for a symbolic walkout, not a boycott of the session. It
would simply have been an expression of solidarity by those who are able
to make to the meeting on their own funds with those are not able to do
so. And hopefully, the event would help raise the visibility of this
issue, which for me and many of us in the South is at the heart of
multistakeholderism. And hopefully, this would have allowed those in the
WG on IGF improvements to insist that the WG report makes the necessary
provision.
>
> The current economic situation is such that funding of any kind is
> hard to obtain. Things will only get worse over the course of the next
> 2 years.
That is a lame excuse and we can do better than to fall prey to it. What
economic situation are you talking about? Why has this bad situation not
affected private funding for attendees? Why does it only affect public
funding? Every two months or so a large conference seems to get held in
the North on IG issues? Why doesnt the economic conditions affect this
sudden rash of IG meetings and conferences? Ensuring committed funding
for MAG CS members is what, about 30 international tickets and the cost
of a few days each of stay in a year. Even a small university and many
NGOs hold a few meetings every year which will entail such costs, what
to speak of governments and businesses. So lets be a little less
patronising on this key and central issue of global governance. NO,
these 30 tickets is not the issue. The issue is the deeper political
economy equation whereby representative global governance systems are
sought to be increasingly undermined in favour of private/ business led
governance systems, where the seats are allocated according to ones'
existing power. We from the South say a loud and clear NO to this
creeping acquisition. This is the primary issue in contention here.
And by 'seeking alternative funds' I understand one means looking for
funds provided by businesses and other institutions that have
pre-committed ideology (like all of us) and their funding is steeped in
conditions that arise from this all but natural context. Sorry, I dont
see these 'alternative sources' as the replacement of the needed public
funds that are sina qua non of improving the participation of those who
are otherwise marginalised from these spaces.
It for the IGC to decide what stand it wants or does not want to take on
this issue, but lets not confuse/shift issues. parminder
> We need to stay engaged. At this point in time, I think the meeting
> will just continue without us.
>
> I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a strategic effort on behalf
> of those on this list to develop speaking points well in advance of
> the meeting. We should work with those attending to make a strong
> statement and concurrently aggressively seek alternate sources of
> funding to support CS engagement. Walking away, is in my opinion, is
> not the best action at this moment in time.
>
> Robert
>
> --
> R. Guerra
> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom <http://twitter.com/netfreedom>
> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org <mailto:rguerra at privaterra.org>
>
> On 2012-02-11, at 1:15 AM, 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
>>> <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
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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/20120212/c382ff53/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