<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>IGC members,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Something tells me that it is the right time for all of us –
at least those of us who care enough about this group – to take up a
comprehensive review of the IGC in a back-to-basics/ bare-all spirit. We need
to examine what we are here for, how well we are doing it, and which direction should
we go from here. We did very briefly try some such review during the
face-to-face IGC meeting at <st1:place w:st="on">Rio</st1:place>, but the time
was too short for anything worthwhile, and the participants’ minds and
energies were mostly occupied with what was happening in the IGF. However some concrete
suggestions did come up, and I as a co-coordinator promised to initiate a
discussion on the IGC email list on rethinking/ restructuring IGC.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>We all can see that there is a certain limbo that this group
is at present caught in. Apart from some continued high quality discussions
there appears to be not much will and/or energy vis-à-vis an activist advocacy
role in this group, which is one of its primary mandate as per the charter
adopted in 2005 ( pl see <a
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html">http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html</a>
). For instance, we are not making much progress towards developing a caucus
position for the very important Feb. consultations for the IGF. I had given out
a call seeking volunteers for the position of co-coordinator, and I have only received
one name till now. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Many members who had earlier been very involved in active advocacy
kind of roles seem to have reduced their involvement and many other members who
are very involved in discussions on this list seem to either not commit
themselves to participating in activist roles of developing common positions etc,
or they are unable yet to figure out the best way to do this. And I think it
is a good time to find out the reasons for this situation in a constructive
spirit of moving forward with a greater clarity of what is the best role for
this group, and how can that be done most effectively. Such an exercise will
help people shape their involvement (or, well, probably withdrawal of involvement)
in this group. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>This in my opinion should be a time for all of us to come
out clearly with how we see this group, and where do we want to take it from
here. While this process may necessarily mean that many contentions would come
out in the open, and we will try to figure out what best can we do about them, we
hope that sufficient amount of civility is maintained in this process. This doesn’t
mean we need to necessarily moderate our views – I think, for a start, we
need some very open and honest discussion here – but only that we do not
get personal and abusive. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>While I will come out with my personal views on this subject
separately, in order to set the ball rolling I will mention some of my ‘more
neutral’ viewpoints. I think that the politics of technologies (or ICTs)
are impacting our societies in a major way, and unfortunately there is great
lack of awareness (and, consequently, involvement) of the public at large about
how the manner of development of these technologies may underlie the very
shaping of our societies. IGC is one of few public interest groups at the global
level that is active in this very important area. Lack of public interest advocacy
and involvement, which is what our inactivity/ abdication will contribute to,
will make for dominant interests shaping the world in manner that serves their
interests even more. All of us who fear this possibility, while also seeing the
opportunity in the new technologies for a freer as well as a more equal and
just world, and have some knowledge, expertise and ‘positions/
connections/ linkages’ in this area, should sincerely explore how best
can we further the public interest through this group. On the process side, IGC
also represents a unique experiment in global civil society organization, and
it is up to us to prove that such new networked forms of civil society organization
and advocacy can be successful. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Recent emails by Garth and Dan, among others, do discuss
some of the issues mentioned above. Hopefully we can have some involved
discussions in the next few weeks on these issues which may help us focus and
structure IGC more purposefully. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Parminder <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>