[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[Vittorio Bertola]

Parminder ha scritto:
> About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions used
> the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make it
> clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four
> themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad subjects
> like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious
> deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are
> asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy deliberations
> seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of itself
> analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between
> extant institutions etc.

Ok, I'm starting to understand better (though what you say is different 
from what Jeremy says, that he would like to have these sessions in 
addition). Bear with me for my pickiness, but I am an engineer and I 
tend to dislike suggestions that do not take reality into account.

However, I think that in this case we first need an introductory 
sentence that says something like "we think that rather having four 
broad sessions it would be better to have four focused ones on specific 
topics for each theme" (in your version) or "we think that in addition 
to the four broad sessions we would like to see more sessions focused on 
specific topics" (in Jeremy's). By the way, I am not too sure about the 
first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true 
that there are many different participants with many different pet 
issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well.

Also, we'd better have good rationales ready for why, say, "access for 
disabled people" is more important than "interconnection costs" (to 
mention an issue from the same theme that lots of people will like to 
focus upon).

> These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given to it
> by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the interests
> on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am
> willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on some
> teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's
> governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some vested
> interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent
> email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which we
> hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a strong
> point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from the
> main debates.'

I think that we should not talk by slogans and accusations. I think that 
the IGF should have a way to generate practical outcomes and I see that 
some parties have been trying to oppose that by all means, but 
attributing the lack of this capability to the overall bad faith of the 
people you are talking to won't make it easier for them to sympathize 
with your request.
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance