[governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles"

Wed Aug 14 10:59:53 EDT 2013

Dear Adam

I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration.

Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become
more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked
processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are
formally part of the main IGF?

I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event
like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was
certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a
case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing.

I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with
one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level
protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with
interactive dialogue.

Anriette

On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote:
> Parminder, 
>
> My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on.  And I understand it worked in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to attend the IGF.  And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM or giganet (etc).  But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF process <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012-igfbaku>.  Also a problem that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented.  
>
> Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented along side the Chairman's summary?  If it were on the host website only, then much less of an issue.  This should be fixed for Bali. 
>
> Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.)  Pre-meetings begin to mix with sessions of the IGF.  Would be good to make a very clear demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.)  
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. 
>>
>> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial.
>>
>> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? 
>>
>> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them.
>>
>> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. 
>>
>> parminder 
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the
>>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for
>>>>>> the NomCom...
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could
>>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks.
>>>>>
>>>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from?
>>>>
>>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer.
>>>
>>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more.  But it's also ambitious.
>>>
>>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop.  I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali.
>>>
>>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too.  If it were me though, I would rather wait.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Policy Officer
>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>
>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- 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