[governance] Transparency (was Re: Program for IGC at IGF)

[Ralf Bendrath]

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> how much can be expected from the IGF (or any other
> existing organization) with respect to going forward on issues
> like ICT accessibility for people with disabilities, privacy
> protection, net neutrality and anti-spam?
As someone who is co-organizing the two privacy workshops, I can assure 
you that we will try to establish some follow-up process and definitely 
hope to go forward somehow. Privacy is being dealt with in a diverse set 
of arenas, from the EU and the OECD to the Global Business Dialogue on 
e-Commerce and ISO. Not many of them are open or transparent, and many are 
driven by business interests. The IGF is a unique chance to have a 
discussion among all stakeholders on a level playing field and see how we 
can move forward together in a more inclusive way. (I prefer "inclusive" 
for "transparent", as transparency is something you can have even if you 
are just outside looking in through a window.)

> Is there any reason to expect that from the currently-existing
> structure, effective action will result in a manner which puts the
> good principles of the Tunis Commitment into action (as opposed to
> merely paying lip-service to those principles)?
It depends on us as much as on anybody else.

> If what needs to happen cannot reasonably be expected from the
> IGF and other existing structures, we who care about these
> matters should use the opportunity of the Athens meeting and
> launch a light-weight but accountable and transparent organizational
> process for making these things happen.
I somehow have the feeling that "lightweight" and "accountable" do not 
always pull you into the same direction.

> When I propose "a new organization" I certainly didn't want to suggest
> a competitor to the IGF.  Rather I'm talking about a multistakeholder
> process aimed at coordinating effective action, which I hope will
> emerge from the IGF.
This is what we are planning for our privacy workshops. Are we the only 
ones? I always assumed that this would be the whole point of going to 
Athens - not having a talk show for 90 minutes. Not sure though how much 
these processes on the different themes must be coordinated. I know that 
there are horizontal issues, but these are much more relevant with regards 
to existing bodies that willingly or unwillingly do internet governance, 
like WTO or WIPO. And this is where much more transparency is needed.

> I'm thinking of something really lightweight
> organizationally, with one yearly face-to-face meeting for those who
> can make it to the IGF, plus interaction over the internet (the
> face-to-face meetings should allow full participation over the
> internet, and also during the rest of the year there should be
> interaction and decision-making via the internet).
So you basically want to add a few mailing lists to the existing IGF 
structure? Well, fine with me. But government people are normally not 
really prepared to use this medium a lot. I think the biggest challenge at 
the moment is overcoming the differences of organizational and 
work-related cultures between CS, the business community, and governments.
We are not anywhere near a point where decisions can be made by the IGF.

[Jeremy]
>>Of course it's a difficult ask, but how much more difficult would it
>>be to create yet another organisation that would have the same
>>buy-in from stakeholders as the IGF?
Exactly.

Best, Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance