[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Parminder]

> 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 the charter stands adopted, and the only difference from its full blown
application is that we have one coordinator instead of two (and well, not
any appeals committee). But IGF comes once in a year, and this is the first
and formative meeting of IGF. So it is important to catch the significance
of the moment. 

It is different if we do not have the collective motivation and/ or energy
to do it, but I don't think there are any strong process problems facing us
now (any more than there shall always be). 

Parminder 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:52 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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