[governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion

[Riaz K Tayob]

WIPO has a similar approach to civil society participation Genetic 
Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore which facilitates the 
participation of indigenous people in particular. Perhaps this is a 
model that can be adopted/adapted as it is within the UN family... 
although WIPO is a little of a black sheep in many respects with its 
commitment to Development (Agenda) rather recent (unlike other UN 
agencies) and rather despotic interpretations of what development means 
(like other UN agencies)...

On 2012/02/16 11:10 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> Dear Mike,
>
> What IGC needs to work on, with support from civil society
> organization and Internet organizations, is a Civil Society Fund. The
> fund could be set up with a purpose of improving Civil Society
> participation in MAG, IGF and other important events, and could be
> large enough to cover requirements other than travel and
> participation. A group of IGC leaders, together with some well
> connected volunteers could begin work on this and set us such a fund.
> The contribution could come from individuals and civil society
> organizations. We could also reach out to , and from those Business
> Corporations and Governments which are willing to contribute to the
> fund unconditionally. If this can't be done, achieving a balance in
> the multi-stakeholder environment would be difficult.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:04 AM, michael gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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