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

[Baudouin Schombe]

Hello Michael,

With regard to legitimacy, I agree with you. Legitimacy that must be
to base the
principle of multi-stakeholders.
The principle is universal, but enforcement remains in the logic level of
each country taking their real political, economic and social.
I'll meet you on the issue of funding the process. It is here that we must find
appropriate answers.
*
Baudouin
*
2012/2/13 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>

> **
>  Effective governance is in large part about the perception of
> legitimacy.  In the context of the Internet it is clear that in order for
> the governance processes (including those processes about process as the
> IGF to a considerable extent is) to have legitimacy there must be
> participation by the various stakeholders.  Certain of the stakeholder
> groups notably the private sector and the technical community as supported
> largely by the private sector have a clear set of (financial) interests in
> effective governance.  Governments as providing the regulatory
> framework within which the Internet operates clearly have set of interests
> in ensuring that national regulatory (and other) priorities are
> reflected/accommodated within the goverance structures.
>
> There is also a clear public interest in Internet governance which under
> other circumstances might be represented by governments but in the
> particular circumstances of the Internet -- because of its rapidly
> changing, somewhat technical and global reach -- is proving somewhat
> difficult to channel public interest perspectives/requirements through
> conventional governmental structures.
>
> This means that the public interest (or in another way the non-commercial,
> non-technical, non-regulatory interests of Internet users) needs to be
> represented in Internet Governance or the process lacks legitimacy.
>
> It is in the overall interests of the Internet and all stakeholders that
> Internet Governance is perceived as legitimate (note the current issues
> around the perceived illegitimacy of the ACTA process).
>
> Thus it is in the overall interest of Internet Governance (and the
> Internet Governance processes) that there is a civil society participation
> (the comparable OECD processes have already moved some considerable way
> along the path to the recognition of this.
>
> The question then becomes how to ensure funding for this process.  The
> most appropriate and fairest way for funding such inclusion would be
> through taxation however, since there is no global governance mechanism
> through which such taxation might be enforced this is a major
> problem. However, a few pennies from each of the domain
> registrations/renewals would more than adequately fund the entire
> Internet Governance process including ensuring public interest
> participation in the MAG/IGF etc.etc.
>
> Such a contribution to orderly and effective Internet governance processes
> should surely be of considerable interest to those most directly concerned
> with ensuring an orderly and effective operation of the Internet.
>
> As per Deidre's earlier comments and other anecdotal information it would
> appear that there is already considerable support coming informally from
> that quarter for CS participation in the IGF and other Internet Governance
> processes.  Perhaps those who have been doing this informally may wish to
> take a leadership in looking to formalize this process.
>
> Mike
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:42 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers]
>
> 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
> Email: 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> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/
ACADEMIE DES TIC
FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre
At-Large Member
NCSG Member

email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com
         baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net
tél:+243998983491
skype:b.schombe
wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net
blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120216/77c8fbab/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