<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 19 January 2018 11:23 PM,
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:55efb3a4-8e31-417e-1446-d27e4a5d2d28@eff.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
On 19/1/18 5:11 am, parminder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f14caf4c-af29-2468-f7e0-5c9a6c26cf69@itforchange.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font face="Verdana">I really did not know that IGF had its
own agency to represent itself at other forums. Whom does it
really represent? Because when you represent, you also speak
for. For whom does the it speak, and on what basis? .. That
is a mission creep which has been done without consulting or
even declaring.... <br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I actually agree with Parminder on this (yes, it does happen). Not
that I think that the IGF shouldn't be able to be represented in
an official way at other international institutions. On the
contrary, I strongly believe that it should be able to do so, </blockquote>
<br>
That might be one view, but it was not ever proposed nor agreed to
by, lets use the term, "IGF community". This is always the problem
with so called or claimed "open and flexible process", they get
captured by whoever can expend the most resources. Norms and
structures then can accordingly work to ensure fairness and equity,
the values that should be central to progressive civil society<br>
<br>
.... parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:55efb3a4-8e31-417e-1446-d27e4a5d2d28@eff.org">and the
fact that it hasn't been able to effectively deliver messages to
other institutions has been one of its chief failings. I also
don't blame Lynn St Amour for wanting to do this.<br>
<br>
But this is not the way to do it! The liaison between IGF and WEF
(and IETF, ICANN, OECD, WTO...) should be formally
institutionalised in some way, so that there is accountability and
legitimacy. It shouldn't just be casually announced that "I/the
IGF have been invited...", as if the distinction is immaterial.<br>
<br>
I do disagree in one minor respect with Parminder and that's that,
in my reading of what has happened, it's not that the MAG has
engineered this, but rather that it's been done in a way that
deliberately bypassed the MAG, because the MAG is so dysfunctional
that it stands in the way of the evolution of the IGF, in this and
other respects, and Lynn knows this.<br>
<br>
But that doesn't make it right. If anything, this means the MAG
needs to be overhauled, not that it needs to be minimized and
bypassed. I support Parminder's call for the CS members of the MAG
to hold it accountable here and to call for the institution of a
proper, transparent and accountable process for the appointment of
formal institutional liaisons between the IGF and other bodies.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org" moz-do-not-send="true">https://eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" moz-do-not-send="true">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt</a>
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>