[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Adam Peake]

There's a "setting the scene" session on the afternoon of the first 
day that might be a good time to ask some of these questions, and a 
"taking-stock and the way forward" session on the final day for 
others.

We could submit them as questions from the caucus (if agreed). Or you 
can send them as individuals.  Or I and I think other CS members of 
the MAG would be happy to deliver them. Or someone can send them in 
remotely, or blog them and Kieren might pick them up.

IGF seems to be ignoring a large part of it's mandate 
(<http://www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm>)  It would be good to ask 
why, but better to discuss how to we can start to address the 
overlooked issues. (does why matter as much as improving things?)

The IGF is being "bootstrapped" as a conference. As soon as Greece 
offered to host a meeting it basically meant a conference had to be 
organized (that's not criticism, I think just fact). Questions (and 
answers) about how it can become a dialogue would be helpful.

The role of the MAG after Athens should be discussed. Will it 
continue to act as (on paper anyway) advisors to the UN Secretary 
General and he continue to convene the IGF, or how can something be 
set up to replace it (more transparent, accountable etc.)  But I 
think focus on process will bore the room and be a waste of time 
considering there are actually issues to discuss and we'll be doing 
it as equals with all other stakeholders. Bit if an opportunity to 
waste.

Adam




>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