<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Hi everyone:<br>
As per member suggestions, I am starting a separate thread on this list
with the Subject Line: Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF for the
discussion Jeremy, David and others have suggested. George: by a
separate thread, I just mean a specific Subject line to identify the
discussion to those who are interested. This is it!<br>
<br>
I will repeat Fouad's first comments here.<br>
<br>
</font>
<pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>Here are my ideas:
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">></span>
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>-- Within the multistakeholder model and the IGC as key stakeholder
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>within multistakeholderism in IGF cannot propose a single structural
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>model because its members coming from various Civil Society
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>backgrounds, developing/developed region contexts and perceptions on
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>Internet Governance will present varying needs. This can be collected
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>through a possible survey and various models can be presented.
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">></span>
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>-- Despite discussion on the list of varying positions and/or
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>possibilities, such a suggestion document should not be conclusive of
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>the model because within the multistakeholder model, we are one part
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>of it, the other parts are the Governments and Private Sector, roles
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>and positions that cannot be dis-accounted.
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">></span>
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>-- Instead of falling into the working group whirlwind, we should
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>start a separate discussion thread with a suggested title "Suggestions
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>for Structural Reforms of IGF" and all members should be free to post
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>their thoughts on this. There thoughts be collected and put together
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>in a document that can after the consensus of IGF members be forwarded
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>to the IGF Secretariat for sharing with the other stakeholders because
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>involvement of other stakeholders from within the multistakeholders
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>will eventually happen despite the fact we want it or not.
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">></span>
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>I am in and support the separate discussion list on this issue with no
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>working group and then the coordinators putting together the
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>suggestions and sharing them finally with the IGC list before
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>submitting them to the IGF secretariat.</pre>
<br>
<br>
George Sadowsky wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:p06200718c73b09547371@%5B192.168.1.105%5D"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style>
<title>Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC
[was Fu</title>
<div>Ginger,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It seems to me that, given IGC's quasi-recognition by IGF as
being representative of civil society (David Souter's apt
phraseology), any discussion regarding recommendations for the
restructuring of the IGF emanating from this list will be of rather
central importance to members of the list.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Therefore I would argue that any such discussion be held on this
list rather than on a separate thread.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>George</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span></span>~~~~~
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At 12:32 PM -0430 12/1/09, Ginger Paque wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><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:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>I agree that this discussion
should
take place on the list...<br>
<br>
If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood
the<br>
discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be
that open<br>
discussion in any case.<br>
<br>
M<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: David Souter [</tt><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:david.souter@runbox.com"><tt>mailto:david.souter@runbox.com</tt></a><tt>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM<br>
To:</tt> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><tt>governance@lists.cpsr.org</tt></a><tt>;
'Ginger Paque'<br>
Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was
Future of<br>
<br>
<br>
Ginger:<br>
<br>
There are, I would expect, many different viewpoints on this list
concerning<br>
structural reform of the IGF, some of which are going to be
incompatible. I<br>
would have thought that the IGC would want to capture their diversity
and<br>
reflect quite widely on them; certainly if it wants to move
towards<br>
consensus rather than a contest between competing visions. This
is<br>
particularly important, I would have thought, given the
quasi-recognition<br>
which the IGC has as being representative of civil society within the
IGF.<br>
<br>
I would be interested to know whether others think it better to
conduct a<br>
discussion on this in a working group or on the whole list. If a
working<br>
group is preferred, would it not be better for you as coordinator to
ask<br>
list participants to identify themselves if they would be interested
in<br>
participating? Those who are interested could then choose their
own working<br>
methods and individual roles. Either way, all-list or working
group, might<br>
it be a good idea to ask all list participants to respond to a series
of<br>
basic questions, covering both "ideal" and "pragmatic"
contexts?<br>
<br>
<br>
Message sent by:<br>
<br>
David Souter<br>
Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd<br>
Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School,
University<br>
of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and<br>
Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the
International<br>
Institute for Sustainable Development<br>
<br>
145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD<br>
(+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line)<br>
(+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line)<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Ginger Paque [</tt><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com"><tt>mailto:gpaque@gmail.com</tt></a><tt>]<br>
Sent: 01 December 2009 14:01<br>
To:</tt> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><tt>governance@lists.cpsr.org</tt></a><tt><br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was
Future of<br>
<br>
"I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for
structural<br>
reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators."<br>
<br>
Hi Jeremy,<br>
If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a<br>
working group with interested people from the list, and then post
your</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>suggestions to the list for
consideration. I think it might be more<br>
efficient than undertaking it on the whole list.<br>
<br>
Best, Ginger<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</tt><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM,
Parminder
wrote:<br>
<br>
</tt><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>After some very muted
response to the
'enhanced cooperation' debate -<br>
which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy
development<br>
- CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review
issue<br>
from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over'
(we<br>
have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly
against<br>
making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness<br>
towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the
purpose<br>
of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent.<br>
</tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>Yes, I was disappointed with
the
blandness of the IGC statement which<br>
was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the
IGF,<br>
we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and<br>
enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the<br>
importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the<br>
Secretariat in its present form. Well, its present form is
really<br>
pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and<br>
otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support
apple<br>
pie and kittens.<br>
<br>
</tt><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>We also think that MAG has
to take on
more substantial role/ power,<br>
of distilling from the work of committed issue-based working
groups<br>
as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with
non-binging<br>
advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of<br>
plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model<br>
,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant
discourse,<br>
of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can
be<br>
achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task,
where<br>
some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound<br>
manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues<br>
within the IGF framework?<br>
</tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>This should have been in the
IGC
statement.<br>
<br>
</tt><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>Anyway, the burden of the
argument
here is that a model of structural<br>
changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the<br>
negotiations in the next few months will take place around that.
Does<br>
the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its<br>
members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it,
we<br>
need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the<br>
co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks.<br>
</tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>I agree. I have, of course,
written a great deal on this (the book<br>
that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative
Commons<br>
at</tt> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook"><tt>http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook</tt></a><tt>,
and for a more
digestible<br>
precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at<br>
</tt><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf"><tt>http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf</tt></a><tt>).
I will<br>
be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural
reform<br>
of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators.<br>
<br>
</tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite=""><tt>____________________________________________________________</tt></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>