[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I would agree with that.

I think the limitation is that it is difficult for anyone to call  
rough consensus. since I am not empowered to do so as a process-only  
coordinator and as there is not way to appeal it.  On the other hand  
if a consensus is possible or if you got the way of the petition,  
then i do not see an issue with actually engage in in some  
substantive dialogue toward a stement.  In fact I think that is a  
really good thing.

a.

PS: Speaking of real coordinators - so far only one person is in the  
candidate pool.  We need at least 2 - though of course more choice is  
better (not meant as a criticism of the one).

On 23 okt 2006, at 10.30, Parminder wrote:

>> 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
>

____________________________________________________________
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