<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Thanks for your postings on this idea. It does seem
that:<br>
<br>
--Varying positions and/or possibilities will probably have to be
represented.<br>
<br>
--The results would ultimately have to be discussed on the list.<br>
<br>
--A working group could be formed OR<br>
<br>
--A separate thread for the discussion could be started, so that those
who do not want to take active part could still follow the discussion.<br>
<br>
Will those who are interested in taking up Jeremy's suggestion "</font>to
collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF" <font
face="Arial">please make their interest known?<br>
<br>
Best, Ginger<br>
</font><br>
Michael Gurstein wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:8AA4DED51DA44A7F92FC76C35C5C1735@userPC"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I agree that this discussion should take place on the list...
If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood the
discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be that open
discussion in any case.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: David Souter [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:david.souter@runbox.com">mailto:david.souter@runbox.com</a>]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; 'Ginger Paque'
Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of
Ginger:
There are, I would expect, many different viewpoints on this list concerning
structural reform of the IGF, some of which are going to be incompatible. I
would have thought that the IGC would want to capture their diversity and
reflect quite widely on them; certainly if it wants to move towards
consensus rather than a contest between competing visions. This is
particularly important, I would have thought, given the quasi-recognition
which the IGC has as being representative of civil society within the IGF.
I would be interested to know whether others think it better to conduct a
discussion on this in a working group or on the whole list. If a working
group is preferred, would it not be better for you as coordinator to ask
list participants to identify themselves if they would be interested in
participating? Those who are interested could then choose their own working
methods and individual roles. Either way, all-list or working group, might
it be a good idea to ask all list participants to respond to a series of
basic questions, covering both "ideal" and "pragmatic" contexts?
Message sent by:
David Souter
Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd
Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University
of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and
Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International
Institute for Sustainable Development
145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD
(+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line)
(+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">mailto:gpaque@gmail.com</a>]
Sent: 01 December 2009 14:01
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
Subject: Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of
"I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural
reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators."
Hi Jeremy,
If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a
working group with interested people from the list, and then post your
suggestions to the list for consideration. I think it might be more
efficient than undertaking it on the whole list.
Best, Ginger
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate -
which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy development
- CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review issue
from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over' (we
have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly against
making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness
towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the purpose
of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which
was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF,
we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and
enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the
importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the
Secretariat in its present form. Well, its present form is really
pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and
otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple
pie and kittens.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power,
of distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups
as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging
advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of
plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model
,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant discourse,
of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can be
achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task, where
some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound
manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues
within the IGF framework?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This should have been in the IGC statement.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of structural
changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the
negotiations in the next few months will take place around that. Does
the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its
members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it, we
need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the
co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I agree. I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book
that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons
at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook">http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook</a>, and for a more digestible
precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf">http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf</a>). I will
be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform
of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
!DSPAM:2676,4b152ce125624536733198!
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>