[governance] IGF Planning Retreat
Izumi AIZU
iza at anr.org
Wed May 25 20:12:19 EDT 2016
I was not paying much attention these days to MAG/IGF after I was released
from MAG a few years ago. I fully agree with the views by Bill and
Parminder.
BUT this closed "retreat" is really a bad thing to happen. It is really
going backward to close the door.
At previous MAG meetings after Open Consultation meetings in Geneva, CS
always tried to open the door, and after a few failed tries, they agreed to
make it as an open meeting where any people who want to join could sit in
the room, take the floor. At WG on IGF improvement, similar thing
happened, if not fully implemented.
Boycott may not sound constructive. But, I see good reason to push this.
Sending CS reps, fine. BUT they should try to open the door first and
foremost.
Do that inside the room, open the door from inside. Otherwise, don't
participate.
izumi
2016-05-25 20:19 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:
> Hi Ian
>
> I agree with you that CSCG has a narrow mandate and shouldn’t take on
> itself a decision to lead opposition to a particular event. Conversely, it
> also shouldn’t take on itself a decision to lend support to a particular
> event. Hence discussion should happen before a decision is taken either
> way and announced.
>
> There are going to be people who want to go, so a real boycott cannot be
> enforced in any event. But if enough people think as Parminder and I do
> about this, the CSCG could at least tell DESA it declines to nominate for
> the following reasons, or say we’ll only do so if the meeting will have
> remote participation, whether from Glen Cove or somewhere less swanky. If
> instead most people disagree or don’t care, then ok fine, the universe will
> not implode.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
> On May 25, 2016, at 12:27, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2016 7:23 PM
> *To:* Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr>
> *Cc:* Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> <raquino at gmail.com> ; Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> ; Ian Peter
> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *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
> <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
>
>
>
>
> *************************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org
> *The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections*
> New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
> *************************************************************
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20160526/6e28bb02/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