[governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Apr 3 03:23:36 EDT 2015 


On Thursday 02 April 2015 11:20 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Hi Parminder.
>
> Bunch of meetings whole day ending with a minor emergency that had to
> be attended to because it’s a holiday tomorrow.

Hope everything is well.
>
> I’m glad I had the facts wrong in the right places. (You know what I
> mean.)
>
> You had the question:
> >Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you
> if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social
> Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also
> what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals
> to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective’. 
>
> I’m not in the MAG and I’m only one voice in the APrIGF selection
> committee.

Would still have like have liked your clarification about the
implications of having to present issues with ' a multistakeholder
perspective'. Most members of the committee must be here, and anyone can
clarify it to me..
>
> >Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
> The devil is in the detail. How does one define public interest?

Sure. There is a few centuries of work of political science and how to
define and determine public interest - which is still always a project
in the works. My problem is, you seem to be unsure of 'how to define
public interest' but, at the same time,  happy to easily and
unproblematically use the term 'multistakeholder perspective'. And not
even clarify it when I ask .... Why dont similar doubts occur in your
mind when you make providing such a MS perspective as a condition for
APrIGF workshops? Certainly, there is much less known or written (in
fact, almost, nothing) on what is a 'multistakeholder perspective'.

So, my problem here is relative - why public interest is unclear but
'multistakeholder perspective is presumably clear.

Do you see here almost an exact parallel to the issue which came up
during the recent UNESCO meeting about multistakeholderism versus
democracy - where multistakeholderism was presumed to be a clear and
well defined term, with no 'baggage' and thus included in the text,
while 'democracy' was seen to be unclear and 'carrying baggage', and
rejected.

Shows how deep, well-formed and portent this current political problem
of democracy/ public interest versus the new political form of
multistakholderism is, and the latter's suspiciously post-democratic
nature. I would especially draw the attention of all those who would
otherwise be really committed to democracy, but may miss the depth and
meaningfulness of the issue, for instance as may have happened during
the discussions about the UNESCO document, the WEF-NMI initiative, and
so on...

We may ignore this major emerging political fault-line, of historical
significance, only at our and our democratic societies' peril.

parminder

>
> Had a long day.
>
> Good night.
>
> Regards, 
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 8:09 pm
> To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>,
> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Anja Kovacs
> <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>,
> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended
> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your
> Workshop Proposals
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 01 April 2015 04:14 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>> Hi Parminder.
>>
>> I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised
>> that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players
>> only.
>
> Hi Peng Hwa
>
> Perhaps you missed noting that we have entered the proposal not as a
> regular IGF workshop but under 'others' - calling it as an 'outreach
> event'. And out reach event for any initiative is obviously done by
> those associated with organising that event, here, the Internet Social
> Forum, which are all civil society organisations.  The Internet Social
> Forum is to be a thematic forum under the World Social Forum rubric.
> The World Social Forum in fact only allows civil society groups to
> participate and not businesses or government. Please see this link for
> WSF's criteria of paticipation . Now if you want to take up issues
> with the WSF and its criteria of participation, that is a different
> thing - there are much better worthies to defend it than I.
>
> BTW, among the organisers are both civil society and technical
> community groups, and it has been made clear in the past that it is
> not necessary to have stakeholders as co- organisers of an IGF workshop.
>
>  
>>
>> The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help
>> if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your
>> proposal does not have that request. I presume it means that you are
>> not seeking inputs from government or the private sector.
>
> You can conflating organisers and participants. If you look at the
> tentative panel, you will find a wide variety of stakeholders.
>>
>> Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a
>> couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some
>> critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One
>> of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG
>
> As far as I remember, both at the HK meeting, and later in exchanges
> on this list, my main point was to involve the UN regional commission
> of Asia Pacific.
>
>> (multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it
>> resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger
>> wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but
>> no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing
>> government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the
>> Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t
>> know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was
>> helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming
>> Macao meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.
>>
>> So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is
>> speaker and audience is puzzling. I
>
> you are wrong on your facts .
>
>> have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government
>> officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear
>> them as a badge of honour.
>>
>> So these are my questions that come top of my head.
>>
>>  1. If civil society can organise a session where no government or
>>     business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if
>>     governments and business organise their own meetings among
>>     themselves?
>>
>
> Where did you read that no gov or business is invited? Further, we
> have a variety of stakeholders on the panel as well. Yes, no business
> at present. I would love to get a small developing country business
> but can never find one. If you know anyone please do refer to me.
>
>>  1. If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of
>>     a multistakeholder
>>     model http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society,
>>     would not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?
>>
> I have pretty good idea about what WEF recognises and what it does
> not, and to what purpose. (BTW, do read their Global Redesign
> Initiative, and their vision of the future of governance. But if you
> cant read it all, see a short critique in this article
> <http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm> , go to
> the  box in the article on 'From NetMundial to the WEF'.) The workshop
> on the Internet Social Forum at the IGF is of course not only civil
> society. As for your objection to the proposed Internet Social Forum
> itself being only civil society, you will need to engage with the
> World Social Forum, at whose 2015 meeting last week about 40,000
> people congregated from the world over. The next WSF is probably in
> Canada, and there will curely be an Internet Social Forum event there.
> You are welcome to come.
>
> Below are the current top news about the 2015 WSF meeting. (You may
> also know that the WSF - read charter here
> <http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2>-
> was called in direct opposition to the WEF, so obviously a lots of
> people were never too happy with WEF's multistakeholderism and
> inclusiveness !)
>
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/23/world-social-forum-tunis-activists-united-against-global-power-grab
> http://www.equaltimes.org/2015-a-key-year-for-world-social#.VRvcts3SUyo
> http://cadtm.org/Declaration-of-the-Assembly-of,11452
> http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/27/african_economist_samir_amin_on_the
>
> Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you
> if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social
> Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also
> what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals
> to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective'.
> Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
>
> Regards
> parminder
>
>> Regards, 
>> Peng Hwa
>>
>> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
>> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
>> To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended
>> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your
>> Workshop Proposals
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for
>>> the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For
>>> those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a
>>> proposal!
>>
>> Hi Anja
>>
>> I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should
>> present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder
>> perspective".
>>
>> For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled
>> 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one
>> would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in
>> this area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test
>> of 'incorporating a MS perspective'.
>>
>> Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop
>> on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF,
>> the initial proposal is here
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals>
>> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be
>> 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you
>> or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..
>>
>> Best , parminder
>>>
>>> With best regards,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *APrIGF Secretariat* <sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
>>> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
>>> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao
>>> 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
>>> To: announce at aprigf.asia <mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
>>> *APrIGF Macao 2015*
>>> *30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
>>> *Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
>>> http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>
>>>
>>> *Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*
>>>
>>> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just
>>> concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the
>>> overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop
>>> proposals and their request for a further deadline extension.
>>> To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more
>>> stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further
>>> extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for
>>> community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
>>>
>>> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions
>>> which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner,
>>> incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of
>>> stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall
>>> promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
>>>
>>> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly
>>> encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the
>>> extended period.
>>>
>>> *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015
>>> (Wed) *[Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]*
>>>
>>> *Online Submission
>>> Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
>>>
>>> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the
>>> secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
>>>
>>> *
>>> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF
>>> and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing
>>> list discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in
>>> subscription request.
>>>
>>> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a
>>> sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for
>>> more information.
>>> *
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Secretariat of APrIGF
>>> http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rigf_discuss mailing list
>>> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org <mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
>> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use,
>> or disclose its contents.
>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. 
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150403/8d7c4421/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

More information about the Governance mailing list