[governance] IGF Planning Retreat

Wed May 25 06:27:55 EDT 2016

Bill, Parminder, others,

Yes I also agree with the criticisms.

But In coming to a decision to participate under protest in this exercise, CSCG looked carefully at other reactions to this.

There is nothing I can see in the MAG discussions that suggests that MAG members are considering a wholesale withdrawal; and there is nothing yet to suggest any other stakeholder group will not participate in the proposed retreat and nomination of representatives– although just about everyone is unhappy with the way this has been planned and announced.

At this point of time, it would appear that the planning retreat is going ahead; that may change, and if that is the case, well and good. But at this point of time it appears to be going ahead, and we have the choice to either suggest the best possible civil society reps or leave that to UNDESA. 

That was the call CSCG had to make. 

It is not appropriate for CSCG, which has a strict mandate to simply deal with ensuring the best possible civil society representation to outside bodies, to take on itself a decision to lead opposition to a particular event. Here we can only follow the decisions made by broader civil society groups, not lead some sort of opposition. That’s the way I read our limited mandate, anyway.

So let me ask the question – are people suggesting a complete boycott of this event by civil society?  I see strong support for a letter of protest, but as yet I don’t see widespread support for boycotting the event. Please indicate clearly if you think a boycott is appropriate. 

So yes I agree with the letter of protest – and would urge someone to draft such a letter. If the CSCG member groups all agree to sign, CSCG could be a signatory to such a letter. 

But a boycott goes a lot further. Would the whole civil society MAG  group then not choose any representative (they are a more diverse group that this list it seems) Would no civil society people apply to attend? Unlikely I think. Should CSCG, given the opportunity (for the first time) by UNDESA to choose 2 of the civil society reps, as well as recommendations for other vacancies, say no, civil society is not interested in this workshop at all?

Ian Peter

From: William Drake 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 7:23 PM
To: Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) 
Cc: Governance ; Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Joly MacFie ; Ian Peter 
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Planning Retreat

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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20160525/1cf5964f/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