[governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2

Fri May 2 05:29:25 EDT 2014

Thanks Anja.

Very disappointing to read the pig-headedness over participation of women.  

Don't tweet, use Chatham House rule... makes no sense, there's a live transcript <http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=Day3>  (which has the USA as just saying "I AGREE CERTAINLY WITH THE DISTINGUISHED CLIENT FROM IRAN" ... oh, that's new :-))

Adam

On May 2, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:

> Hi Adam and all,
> 
> The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are taken out of context in the tweets. 
> 
> By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one:
> 
> Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language 
> 
> As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. 
> 
> I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this issue.
> 
> Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the people, I find this discomfort interesting. 
> 
> For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most effective.
> 
> Best,
> Anja  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar <Lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, I think this accurately captures the state of play.
> 
> One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over into other fora (ITU, WSIS review).
> 
> Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, there are two likely options:
> 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR.
> 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data.
> 
> Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for assessment (currently absent).
> 
> Stay tuned.
> 
> Lea
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> >
> > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the meeting. Good luck today.
> >
> > About your last point, tweets.  The meeting is transcribed, we can see who is saying what.  How is tweeting a problem?  Perhaps clarify with the chair.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It was a long day.  We finally made it through all of the proposed
> >> recommendations that group members had offered.  We are at least half a
> >> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting.
> >>
> >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report.  While the
> >> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of
> >> fundamental disagreement:
> >>
> >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document
> >>
> >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now
> >> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps.
> >>
> >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and
> >> needs further discussion.
> >>
> >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially
> >> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation:
> >>
> >> - among governments
> >>
> >> - among all stakeholders.
> >>
> >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include
> >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's
> >> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced
> >> Cooperation.  The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion:
> >>
> >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the
> >> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments
> >> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held
> >>
> >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders.
> >>
> >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on
> >> as long as it did.  I am sure this discussion will resurface at some
> >> point in day 3.
> >>
> >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced
> >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these
> >> models in the document.  This discussion continued the second day with
> >> some some arguing:
> >>
> >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and
> >> there seem to be some such points
> >>
> >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models.
> >>
> >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only
> >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would
> >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the
> >> points they had just accepted.
> >>
> >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have"
> >>
> >> - a chair's report
> >>
> >> - a WG group
> >>
> >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is
> >> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2.
> >>
> >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is
> >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions
> >>
> >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have
> >> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional
> >> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There
> >> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up:
> >>
> >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more
> >> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve
> >>
> >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure
> >>
> >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of
> >> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion.
> >>
> >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using
> >> twitter to say things that offended some WG members.  To me, this showed
> >> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven
> >> discussions are in todays' world.
> >>
> >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and
> >> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that
> >> underlay our discussions.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can
> >> correct or amplify this quick report.
> >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt><DRAFTfinal report-140501>____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> > <message-footer.txt>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

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