[governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Sep 10 02:45:39 EDT 2015
Dear Valeria and Chat,
Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope others
follow the example.
I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding and
decision making processes - of such meetings by the organisers. And I
keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting was called Asia Pacific
Consultation ...
parminder
On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who
> is not subscribed to these lists.
>
> Best,
>
> Valeria
> ----
>
> APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which
> helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively
> participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as
> the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive
> than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance
> processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil
> society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and
> informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up
> opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin
> America, Africa and Asia.
>
> In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed
> the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia
> in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in
> funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified
> participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can
> contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget
> to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where
> this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from
> Sida, DGIS and EIDHR.
>
> >From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a
> limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of
> all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was
> expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe
> that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome
> document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the
> various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was
> meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make
> submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level
> meeting in December.
>
> For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see:
> https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie
>
> Best,
>
> Chat
>
> On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote:
>> Hi Anja
>>
>> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call
>> as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained,
>> public interest information about what is supposed to be a public
>> interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.
>>
>> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue
>> because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about
>> who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to
>> consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also
>> greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group
>> involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part
>> of category 1 above.)
>>
>> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of
>> category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may
>> not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective
>> information under category 1 sought in my earlier email .
>>
>> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues
>> that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a
>> worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline....
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>
>>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who
>>> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to
>>> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
>>>
>>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know,
>>> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process.
>>> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with
>>> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even
>>> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when
>>> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what
>>> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken
>>> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that
>>> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that
>>> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York -
>>> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't
>>> guaranteed at all.
>> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the
>> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your
>> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website
>> <http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian
>> Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public
>> interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices')
>>
>>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are
>>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing
>>> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
>>> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen.
>> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not
>> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to
>> answer, you should just say so.
>>
>>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried).
>>> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult
>>> decisions indeed did have to be made.
>> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an
>> "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry
>> that label.
>>
>>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's
>>> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from
>>> a range of perspectives.
>> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of
>> perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything,
>> just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show
>> how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more
>> below...
>>
>>
>>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two
>>> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must.
>> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus
>> plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of
>> perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts
>> all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a
>> meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people.
>>
>>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people
>>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we
>>> were not able to offer funding.
>> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the
>> decisions.
>>
>>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance.
>> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard
>> about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this
>> even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting
>> my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we
>> invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not
>> revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec you had this
>> Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates
>> were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not
>> understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being
>> another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements,
>> which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to
>> a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self
>> funded (although I could not have) if they knew about this meeting...
>> But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN
>> process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of
>> 10 days)...
>>
>>
>>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the
>>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to
>>> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full
>>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still
>>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring
>>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing
>>> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first
>>> in our region for a meeting of this kind.
>> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS
>> process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases...
>>
>>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is
>>> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day
>>> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that
>>> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources
>>> to attend this event and contribute to its success.
>> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist,
>> so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members
>> especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including
>> developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource
>> page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
>> contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs,
>> chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition.
>> This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of
>> perspectives'.
>>
>> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been
>> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till
>> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it
>> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC
>> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till
>> yesterday? )
>>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are
>>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well,
>> They have worked in this area for quite some time..
>>
>>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum
>>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to
>>> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
>>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the
>>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of
>>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely,
>>> they are very welcome to do so, as are you.
>> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the
>> real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and
>> transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals...
>>
>>> Hope this clarifies.
>> My apologies, but it doesnt.
>>
>> Best, parminder
>>> Regards,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10
>>> Review,
>>>
>>> *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know
>>> this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and
>>> completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by
>>> some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance
>>> of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for
>>> me to get into this thing....
>>>
>>> This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian
>>> Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process,
>>> and so some questions arise in my mind:
>>>
>>> (1) who is funding this 'consultation'
>>>
>>> (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
>>> sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
>>> view, would be a consultation)
>>>
>>> (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
>>> by whom, and who decided it..
>>>
>>> Thanks for answering these public interest questions...
>>>
>>> I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that
>>> no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for
>>> Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been
>>> engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly
>>> engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO
>>> Engagement Mechanism <http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which
>>> describes itself as
>>>
>>> "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
>>> cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
>>> sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental
>>> processes in regional and global level. The platform is
>>> initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up
>>> under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN
>>> agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other
>>> development related issues/processes. "
>>>
>>> In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency
>>> which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a
>>> member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net
>>> Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the
>>> Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in
>>> Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or
>>> the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia
>>> Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group
>>> would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
>>> so my questions..
>>>
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the
>>>> Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners
>>>> Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional
>>>> Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in
>>>> Pattaya, Thailand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
>>>> together experts from different backgrounds and from around the
>>>> Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs,
>>>> sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to
>>>> ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely
>>>> address in the process of the review?
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on
>>>> the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators
>>>> of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can
>>>> be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group
>>>> will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian
>>>> region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work
>>>> together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper
>>>> (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
>>>> be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft).
>>>> The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs
>>>> could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure
>>>> that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board
>>>> in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other
>>>> processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into,
>>>> these might be taken into consideration as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting
>>>> that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next
>>>> input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be
>>>> drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a
>>>> wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of
>>>> professional expertise and geographical location. What unites
>>>> all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet
>>>> and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human
>>>> rights of all in our region.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will
>>>> be available. *For more information on remote participation and
>>>> the event in general, please see the event website
>>>> <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me
>>>> know if you have any comments or questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>
>>>> Anja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150910/c871a56b/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