[governance] IGF Planning Retreat

[Norbert Bollow]

I also fully agree with the criticisms of this IGF Planning Retreat
which have been raised by Parminder and by Bill.

I'm sure that it will have a strong and good impact if the major CS
networks/coalitions that engage with the IGF can agree to take a strong
stance here.

Greetings,
Norbert



On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:23:21 +0200
William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Arsene
> 
> > On May 24, 2016, at 15:42, Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo)
> > <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry, but I thought the CSCG (as per Ian's email) is receiving CS
> > nominations and will report it to the IGF Secretariat? Please help
> > me undertand.
> 
> Sorry, my mailer dumped Ian’s message into the archive rather than my
> IGC folder so I’d not seen it when I replied.  
> 
> That said, I really wish the CSCG had not decided to do this.  I
> would rather see CS, and indeed all stakeholders, tell DESA that we
> will not participate in a closed meeting, period. Which is what it
> turns out this will likely be:
> 
> "Due to on-site logistics, online/remote participation may not be
> available for the retreat; however, outcome documents of the retreat
> will be shared for further comment/consultation."
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-faqs
> 
> I think for DESA to unilaterally organize such a meeting on a closed
> basis is a total violation of the principles of openness and
> inclusion that the “IGF community,” such as it is, has worked for ten
> years to bake into this process.  And bear in mind, this  is not an
> isolated incident.  An uncomfortable amount of the real decision
> making about the IGF takes place off stage and hence off the radars
> of stakeholders.  It seems that as long as people get to go once a
> year and do a workshop everyone’s fine with this, but I remember a
> time when we actually cared about how the IGF is run, having been the
> most vocal proponents of its creation.
> 
> There is no reason on earth that an elite group of people selected by
> DESA needs to meet in the lovely leafy beach town of Glen Cove, Long
> Island in a place with no online facilities.  In mid-July a
> conference room at the main UN can surely be found.  If this somehow
> is not possible, a nearby hotel could probably provide a wired room
> for less than the price of Glen Cove.  Ok, this wouldn't be a swank,
> so people who managed to get their plane tickets paid for wouldn't
> feel as much like an inner circle entrusted to chart the direction of
> the IGF’s evolution, but boo hoo.
> 
> This is not a meeting to negotiate a nuclear arms treaty.  It’s a
> meeting to talk about the IGF.  If it is not transparent and open to
> participation then to me it has zero legitimacy, and civil society
> should not be undermining what is has worked for by participating.
> So I am in complete agreement with Parminder:
> 
> > On May 25, 2016, at 06:06, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > However the routine has been for the CS leadership to make some
> > protest noises but then simply submit to whatever is offered. Lets
> > for once stand out ground. Write a strong letter, and if we do not
> > get a satisfactory response, refuse to go along. UNDESA/ IGF cannot
> > keep contravening what are now the established rules of conduct for
> > the IGF.
> 
> 
> Bill
> 


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