[governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations

Sun Feb 11 11:19:12 EST 2007

Dear all,

  My apologies as I was among those travelling.  I have read the text three times.  I am in favor of mentioning ICANN.

  Vittorio, thanks.  Here is my suggestion:

  Divide the text into:

   The opening - where you present the IGC    
   Athens - say the good, bad.    
   Rio - make recommendations 

   The IGF in general  
  The elements are already there.  I have a strong feeling that if  you move them around, you will find it easier to cut off some parts and  still retain the principle.

  I do support the raising the fundraising issue.  It does not in  any way say that the secretariat is not doing its job.  It reminds  that the problem is still there.

  Best

  Nnenna

  Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:  

Jeannette/ Vittorio

> I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement.
> For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all
> parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned
> only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue
> look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the
> first page.

I agree. I think the IGF mandate part can be taken higher up in the
document.... this wouldn't change the statement very substantively. 

> Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more
> traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without
> knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it.
> 
> I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main
> sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not
> top down.
>

We can change the wording, but what is meant I think is regular serious
plenaries that are in contact and sync with other proceedings. For example
to quote Carlos from a recent email. 

" Several post-Athens contributions are worried about format as well as
content. My view is that we need a process in each meeting in which we
arrive at thematic and procedural resolutions. Plenaries "moderated" (I
prefer to say "manipulated") by professional TV hosts do not work well, and
even scare some of the panelists (specially some of those whose native idiom
is not English). We need thematic specialists as moderators, not "crowd
handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the purpose here was to keep
true debate dissolved into generalities." "In my view, we main focus should
be on thematic workshops with the goal of presenting a resolution proposal
in the final plenary -- the main meetings would be shorter and would work
just as "seeds" for the workshops."

> The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please
> delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of
> the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...)

Since I proposed the part on funding, I must defend it. I am sure the
secretariat would have done their best on funding. But it is wrong to assume
that this statement is addressed to the secretariat. It is addressed to all
stakeholders at the IGF. And there are those who need to help on funding,
but do not do so for political reasons. The funding issue is closely linked
to the issue of governance of IGF, as well of the possibility for the IGF to
meet its full mandate. 

> I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet
> Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message
> in it.

Well, while I am for mentioning that ICANN issues should be discussed at
IGF, because there is some conspiracy around that this issue be kept out, I
am not in favor of characterizing the 'ICANN oversight' issue as a narrow
Internet Governance issue. Because I think this oversight is often the thin
side of the IG public policy wedge, therefore in essence not so narrow.
Vittorio can do some wordsmith-ing around it.

The above are for Vittorio's consideration, who may take the necessary
decisions on these relatively minor issues.

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: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:33 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola
> Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF
> consultations
> 
> Hi Vittorio,
> 
> thank you for drafting the statement.
> 
> Personally I think it is too epic, I prefer short and concise
> statements. If we keep it short, chances are better that people read it.
> 
> I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement.
> For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all
> parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned
> only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue
> look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the
> first page.
> 
> Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more
> traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without
> knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it.
> 
> I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main
> sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not
> top down.
> 
> The secretariat tried to merge workshops, not always successfully. One
> cannot really force organizers to merge or to implement the
> multi-stakeholder principles, can one?
> 
> The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please
> delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of
> the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...)
> 
> I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet
> Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message
> in it.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> 
> 
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for
> > Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it.
> >
> > Please anyone who wishes to express consensus on the statement, or
> > anyone having strong objections to it, say so before Monday, 4pm UTC. (I
> > would ask people to live by the statement if they really do not have
> > strong objections, all in all I think it reflects the discussion so
> far.)
> >
> > The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few
> > hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became
> > "about five" from "five or less") and two lines by Parminder on IGF
> > funding at the end of the first page (pretty neutral I'd say). Anyway, I
> > left all redlining in respect to version 1.
> >
> > Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition
> > (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think
> > that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working
> > structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long
> > as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all
> > the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are
> > different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para.
> > This will shape another decision by the coordinators on Monday
> afternoon.
> >
> > Thanks,
> _
> 

---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070211/0c0ba596/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070211/0c0ba596/attachment.txt>