[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Vittorio Bertola]

Ralf Bendrath ha scritto:
> Of course, the tough part is then to come up with smart answers that we 
> all think are a) feasable and b) legitimate. But this is our job. We 
> very much missed out on developing a grand vision for the IGF beforehand 
> that would live up to the expectations of the Tunis agenda.

Well, actually I and the other people who worked out the Forum concept 
in the WGIG did have a grand vision for the IGF - one made of 
specialized online working groups elaborating non-binding 
recommendations that would be ratified and distributed to the 
appropriate entities, be them other institutions, national governments, 
industry consortia, NGOs, or the users in general. I have spoken many 
times of a IETF-like entity, with bottom-up working groups and with the 
AG acting as the IAB. Others might have slightly different opinions 
(especially on the role of the AG), but that's more or less the idea.

I think that a model like that could have worked, but then the process 
(no offense meant for those involved and their hard work) got completely 
derailed into a sort of talk show, or a wannabe copy of the INET... (I 
guess that the replacement, when creating the first IGF AG, of 80% of 
the WGIG CS members with ICANN/ISOC people isn't unrelated to this 
outcome: different set of people and different backgrounds => different 
minds and different objectives.)

> Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into statements. 
> This will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among ourselves on how 
> we want to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us some 
> advantage to most of the other stakeholder groups who expect a 
> conference and nothing else.

Even more pragmatically, we are in the middle of a charter rework that 
doesn't allow us much space for substance statements as a caucus, but we 
could still work out a statement and get signatures under it. I would be 
careful about not looking as the usual overcritical bunch of 
subversives, but I would be very clear as for what we expect.

We should call the IGF back to its mandate (since it is currently 
ignoring the best part of it) and propose practical ways to implement 
it. We should also ask that the next AG incorporates a reasonable amount 
of civil society people, rather than the 4-5 we have now (on a total of 
46!). Not that I particularly mind about chairs, but I mind if it 
affects the outcome so much.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
____________________________________________________________
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