[governance] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants

Fri Jun 24 06:37:14 EDT 2016

I am not convinced that "if there is one remote participant listed, the
infrastructure to enable remote participation is obviously in place" --
after all, there is the possibility of inconsistency between what the
list of participants says and what the actual technical realities may
be. Such inconsistency could for example arise if Nitin Desai has
communicated that he will participate remotely if possible, and the UN
wanted to go ahead with publishing the list of participants but they
don't know yet whether they will succeed in setting up the
infrastructure to enable remote participation.

I do however agree that it is justified at this point to ask pointed
questions about remote participation, and I would support a joint
letter which does that.

Greetings,
Norbert

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 08:52:09 +0200
Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I would like to go back to the point on remote participation. First
> of all, if there is one remote participant listed, the infrastructure
> to enable remote participation is obviously in place. It is just a
> matter of opening and scaling it to allow others to connect.
> Secondly, the issue of allowing or not remote participation in
> meetings of limited membership has been extensively debated in CSTD
> WGs. It was a very important step to see the meetings of the WGEC
> being open to observers, both physically and remotely through WebEx.
> 
> It seems inconceivable to me that we take such a significant step
> backwards in terms of transparency and that we give up the openness
> that others before us worked so hard to achieve. Transparency and
> accountability are pillars that all organisations and bodies should
> abide by. It should not matter if the meeting is being held by IGF,
> CSTD or DESA. I hope that our civil society representatives in MAG
> will be able to influence a final decision. A joint letter could also
> be helpful at this moment.
> 
> All the best wishes,
> Marilia
> 
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> > Thanks for mentioning gender balance and sending in these numbers.
> > It is great to know the CSCG had an eye for this and sent a message
> > about the disparity of male/female participation.
> >
> > I`d like just to clarify that my comments about being worried about
> > the process converge with a general ask for greater clarity and
> > participation on the debate about the next 10 years of the IGF. All
> > that is being discussed just reaffirms that the majority of civil
> > society wants to participate on this debate, considering or not its
> > start on retreat.
> >
> > My congratulations to Sala and Nnenna have been expressed in other
> > discussion spaces, as well as to all CS representatives. If not,
> > here they go again.
> >
> > On the spirit of moving forward, CS groups have much more to plan in
> > relation to perspectives on internet governance. We all hope to
> > have some news to share on this soon.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Renata
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 6:47 PM, Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If I may just touch on three things mentioned here:
> >>
> >> Firstly, submissions to the IGF Retreat close June 30. Is anyone
> >> planning a submission? It’s one way to get things on the agenda.
> >> CSCG is doing a submission, but in line with its brief it will
> >> only talk about cleaning up the MAG nomination processes. ( we
> >> will make it public when it is finalised). But I would encourage
> >> other submissions, that is one way to get matters of concern on
> >> the table. I think the chance of a whole of civil society
> >> submission is remote with only a week to go, so groups perhaps
> >> should take the opportunity to submit individually.
> >>
> >> Secondly, one of the things the CSCG submission will raise is
> >> gender balance. A point we will be making is that the continual
> >> habit of adjusting civil society participation to give the
> >> appearance of better gender balance overall does not solve the
> >> problem of sexual discrimination, and all stakeholders need to be
> >> required to look more carefully at gender balance within their own
> >> selections.  As an example, looking at the overall balance among
> >> stakeholders for this meeting you get something like
> >>
> >> Civil Society 5 – 1 male 4 female
> >> Private Sector 5 – 3 male 2 female
> >> Tech Community 5 – 4 male 1 female
> >> Government and intergovernental 26 – 23 male, 3 female
> >> Overall – 31 male, 10 female
> >>
> >> (havent double checked my figures but they wont alter much from
> >> that) Clearly relying on civil society to provide better gender
> >> balance is doing nothing to solve the underlying problem.
> >>
> >> And thirdly – just to clarify CSCG endorsements in this process.
> >> There was never any dispute about Lea Kaspar, Stuart Hamilton and
> >> Anriette Esterhuysen attending, as the direct nominees of CS MAG
> >> and CSCG respectively. However, after some protests from our side
> >> about the process, UNDESA did eventually ask us to endorse the
> >> nominations of Sala and Nnenna – neither of whom in the messy and
> >> duplicative process they adopted were among the names originally
> >> considered by CSCG. These names were suggested by UNDESA to
> >> improve overall geographic and gender balance. The CSCG Nomcom did
> >> decide to endorse both Sala and Nnenna in the circumstances. Both
> >> are of course excellent civil society representatives, and it
> >> should be clear that CSCG is supportive of all the civil society
> >> attendees at the retreat – if genuinely concerned about the messy
> >> way the process was conducted.
> >>
> >> Ian Peter
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:54 AM
> >> *To:* williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> >> *Cc:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> ; Nnenna Nwakanma
> >> <nnenna75 at gmail.com> ; Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> ; Matthew
> >> Shears <mshears at cdt.org> ; Best Bits
> >> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; Internet Governance
> >> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; JNC Forum
> >> <forum at justnetcoalition.org> *Subject:* Re: [governance]
> >> [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> (Apologies I have no idea if my msg gets out to JNC, pls fwd if
> >> appropriate)
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if being loud or making noise has done the best it
> >> could so far.
> >> I agree we should agree, as CS, on some topics but I also see the
> >> challenge on that, being CS (fortunately) a diverse group.
> >>
> >> The topic of remote participation, for instance, has had some news
> >> in this last call, as Lea has expressed.
> >> The twitter like updates remain.
> >> The streaming - even if partial - seems to be an idea which has
> >> been dropped for the moment.
> >>
> >> As for the balance in SG representation on the retreat, from the
> >> list one can easily see that CS numbers are low. Even more
> >> worrying, CSCG nominees number are even lower. That when compared,
> >> for instance, with the numbers of gov and intergov.
> >>
> >> I was reminded that even though CS is participating on retreat,
> >> each one of its participants is there on their own personal
> >> capacity, not those of their organization.
> >>
> >> So, while this makes it clearer fo the CS rep to express their
> >> thoughts, also takes us back to the original question: what, if
> >> any, does CS as a group have to do with the next 10 years of the
> >> IGF and how should it go about it?
> >>
> >> Just a quick addition: I find twitter updates way more able to
> >> interpretation and polemic than streaming of a meeting, so I do not
> >> understand very well the choice there. What isn`t spoken has much
> >> more power than what is out there in the open.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Renata
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 1:42 PM, Deirdre Williams
> >> williams.deirdre at gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Particularly in the cause of transparency and inclusion this
> >> discussion should be happening as widely as possibly among civil
> >> society. With apologies I have therefore copied to IGC and JNC.
> >> Perhaps others can spread the word further to as much of "global
> >> civil society" as possible, since all of us speaking together
> >> would have a VERY loud voice that would demand attention.
> >> Best wishes
> >> Deirdre
> >>
> >> On 21 June 2016 at 12:27, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just my 2c but I don’t think it should really be a negotiation, I
> >> know I may be naïve in certain aspects of the IGF working methods
> >> but open and transparent was always told to me to be a core
> >> concept. I don’t think we should be compromising those ideals at
> >> this critical juncture. Without that what do we really have to
> >> move forward with.
> >>
> >> -jg
> >>
> >> From: <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Nnenna
> >> Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> >> Reply-To: Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> >> Date: Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 17:20
> >> To: Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
> >> Cc: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>, Best Bits <
> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants
> >>
> >> Thanks, Lea
> >>
> >> I think it is important that CS folks organisee CS remote
> >> participation. That is, if the IGF secretariat is okay with it.
> >>
> >> Just thinking loud
> >>
> >> Nnenna
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Just got off the MAG call. Remote participation for the Retreat
> >> still not sorted out. From what I understood, we can expect live
> >> tweeting under Chatham house rules, but that could be it. Others
> >> on the call can corroborate -
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Lea
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Great point Ayden.  I would hope that those who have been invited
> >> to participate will continue to be push hard for remote
> >> participation.
> >>
> >> Matthew
> >>
> >> On 6/20/2016 11:41 AM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Lea,
> >>
> >> Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be
> >> participating in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that
> >> remote participation will be available to all to observe the
> >> dialogue exchanged?
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Ayden Férdeline
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the
> >> full list of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's
> >> email below.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >>
> >> *Lea Kaspar*
> >>
> >> Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> >>
> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
> >>
> >> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216
> >>
> >> gp-digital.org
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: *Chengetai Masango* <cmasango at unog.ch>
> >> Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM
> >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants
> >> To: MAG-public <igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at:
> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chengetai

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