[governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion

[Deirdre Williams]

Dear Mike,
I hope the mosquitoes are giving you a chance (as they say here) :-)

>
> Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and
> there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding
> may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give
> precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and
> what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something
> (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its
> success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this
> the principle that we want to accept?
>

The sentence below is copied from the ISOC submission to the Open
Consultation under the sub-heading Funding:
This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of
value to its participants.
I have grave concerns where value is always equated with money - which I
think is in accordance with what you write above?


> We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation
> as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision
> making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the
> legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple
> layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed
> "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on
> outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second
> class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision
> making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f
> interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the
> practice we want to accept?
>

I would like to look at this another way. I strongly suspect that, if I
were a 'youth' of the category described as 'digital natives', I might very
well not understand your concern. Presence in the physical sense is losing
relevance. My children grew up 5000 miles away from their grandparents.
Although a visit from Granny was eagerly anticipated she was still a
stranger to feel shy with when she arrived. Our granddaughter is growing up
5000 miles away as well, but thanks to Skype we've never been strangers,
although we have only ever occupied the same space three times for about 5
weeks in all during her lifetime. One of the people 'at' the MAG meeting
this morning was in San Francisco, rushing off to lobby - electronically -
as soon as the meeting was finished. So I would incline to the idea that
remote participation is fast losing its 'second class' status, and would
push hard for the 'right' that remote participants should NEVER be treated
as second class, although they often are now.

> Deirdre

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120215/4a3759ed/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