[bestbits] Final IGF contribution for endorsement

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On Oct 25, 2014, at 3:41 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Personally, I’d have preferred a shorter and more narrowly focused letter that lays out a model, rather than an expository grazing over multiple issues and historical background. For ex, what I tried to suggest in the Istanbul main session that was nominally supposed to discuss the IGF’s role (I was in a different room and the RM garbled the reading of my typed text) was that we could 

I think it would be very valuable if you forward these comments on your own behalf, since you're no longer on the MAG - if we'd had more time, it could also have been offered as a draft IGC statement.

>>  there is a Secretariat, with limited resources and a narrow self-assessed mandate to effect structural changes to the IGF
>> 
> I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. Where/when was Chengetai and his merry band of volunteers and part-time workers/consultants mandated to effect structural change on behalf of the global community?

It's not meant to suggest that they ever were mandated to make major changes, or ever did so, but there have been minor "operational" changes that they made within the scope of organising the meeting and operating the website, and often without consulting the global community about them first - this is what "narrow" is intended to convey. I can dig up examples when I get a chance...

>> , and there is a MAG which, overall, considers itself a programme committee only and is similarly reluctant to depart from established structures and formats.
>> 
> I think it’s somewhat difficult to ascribe collective intentionality to the MAG because there’s been very little self-reflective discussion of its role, the membership evolves, and a good chunk of the group is fairly disengaged. But there certainly have been members who’d not be accurately portrayed as above.

Sure, well we know that you were one of those!  But hence "overall".

>> The IGF would benefit from the appointment of a new, charismatic and visionary Executive Coordinator, with multi-stakeholder support, to personally evangelise for and drive the necessary changes. 
>> 
> Apparently DESA is again considering an EC.

Good!

>> Workshops are partly scored based on whether panelists are confirmed to attend, but in many cases panelists’ attendance is contingent on the workshop being approved
>> 
> 
> Unfortunately (for the statement), this is not true.  At least in the three years I did it, this was never a criteria for scoring.


I think that we can address this by just adding a few words at the start "There is a perception that...", because that is true, on the basis of several complaints about this that I've heard personally.  This paragraph was based in particular on what Nnenna said during the Best Bits meeting.  The perception itself, even if wrong, should be addressed by clarifying the workshop submission form.


> I don’t know if you’d be willing to delete this paragraph before seeking further endorsements, but it makes it difficult to sign as is.

With those few words added at the start, it is OK?  In any case, I would really encourage you again to submit your own statement, cutting and pasting from your email.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141026/4bbacf74/attachment.htm>