<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body>Hi Milton<div><br></div><div>Report could have gone further but considering consensus politics it could have been much weaker than it is. In the hands of a committed<br>MAG and strong exec sec it can produce good outcomes. Problem is that it is not clear who will be responsible for implementing the recommendations.</div><div><br></div><div>Anriette</div><div>Wide awake in winter<br><span style="font-size:87%">Sent from my phone</span> </div><br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>Subject: [governance] IGF Improvements report <br>From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> <br>To: "Governance (governance@lists.igcaucus.org)" <governance@lists.igcaucus.org> <br>CC: <br><br><br><div style="word-break:break-all;">I have dug up this old message from Anriette, which I think hits the nail on the head. With her on the IGF Improvements WG I thought perhaps there was some hope for some real improvement. <br>Are Anriette and others who shared the views she expresses below happy with the final report? <br>What is missing? What is its greatest strength?<br><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-<br>> request@lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen<br>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:57 PM<br>> To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: IGF Establishment<br>> <br>> <br>> What was interesting about being on the Working Group on IGF<br>> Improvements is that at the outset (hearings and open meetings in late<br>> 2010) this 'IGF establishment' asserted quite vehemently that the IGF<br>> does not need improvement, and, in the unlikely case that it does, it<br>> should be left alone to self-improve.<br>> <br>> For me probably the greatest achievements of this working group is that<br>> by the end of the working group process, this 'establishment' had agreed<br>> that there was room for improvement and contributed suggestions for how<br>> it can take place.<br>> <br>> Suggestions to talk about 'outcomes' which many of us made on open<br>> consultations since the first IGF were always met by this<br>> 'establishment' as outrageous, and likely to lead to the demise of the<br>> IGF. Now I think they realise that absolutely no outcomes is a far<br>> greater risk.<br>> <br>> I.o.w. the IGF 'establishment' has shifted quite a bit in the last<br>> months. Let's hope they are also willing to do so in relation to talking<br>> about 'EC'.<br>> <br>> Anriette<br>> <br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> http://www.igcaucus.org/<br><br>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br></div> </body>