This is interesting. Actually, all of EuroDIG was interesting, and I'd highly
recommend that everyone watch the recording (when it is available) of the
brilliant open-mic session moderated by Emily Taylor where issues like this were
fleshed out. But back to the article you linked to, this siloing of stakeholders
into different venues isn't ideal for us. I wonder how many of these
non-multistakeholder venues for such discussions are out there? Looking at the stats for IGF workshop proposals , dare I say civil society is over-represented when compared with business and
governmental interests? I know that not every workshop proposal will be
approved, but when 6 out of 10 proposals come from one stakeholder group (the
one with the least resources), it's hard not to read between the lines and
wonder why. Just look at who is going to GSMA's Mobile World Congress (which
last year had over 100,000 participants, and they paid to attend!) vs the IGF…
Why are fewer and fewer governments and inter-governmental organisations seeing
relevance in it? Maybe the comparison here is unfair as these two forums
approach the digital transformation of society from different angles, but
visibility in terms of numbers of participants and diversity of stakeholder
affiliation matters. If civil society becomes the only voice at the table, the
value of our participation is diminished.
Ayden





On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 6:57 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [log in to unmask] wrote:

http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/06/09/eurodig-2016-multi-stakeholder-soul-searching/




w






Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest