[governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva

[Parminder]

Hi

(And, requesting special attention of IGC members who will attend tomorrows
meeting)

This is outside of the consensus developing exercise for a caucus statement.


Like Milton I think Carlos has suggested some good points that may be
considered by IGC participants at the meeting. Now that Carlos himself is
attending the meeting, he sure will take these up, but what I am attempting
here is the possibility that a set of points/proposals can be taken up under
some umbrella theme/ideas with collective force of all IGC/ CS participants
at the meeting.

My point of departure for this is the strong sense that the existing
governance structure of IGF has taken a certain attitude (which is very very
political, in my view, and not just administrative though that's how it may
be passed off) that IGF is to be, more or less, an annual IG conference.
George Sadowsky's comments (and he is a special advisor to the chair) are
quite forthright on this issue, and he has cited the 'general feeling' in
the IGF governance structure and not just his own views. 

To substantiate his assertion, one only has to note the drift of the
synthesis paper prepared by the IGF for this meeting. While the paper does a
good work of putting different views together, it does betray the mind of
the present IGF governance structure on this issue(As Jeremy has noted).
Very strangely, it seems to, in a way, give legitimacy to the view that the
Tunis agenda mandated only a 'discussion forum' task for IGF, and anything
else will mean going beyond the Tunis agenda.

To quote the synthesis paper

" Other commentators however emphasize that the IGF should not of itself
seek to change or expand its mission, which was the result of careful and
lengthy negotiations within the WSIS. They see the role of the IGF as a
platform for exchanging information and ideas and sharing best practices in
a true multi-stakeholder format."

But we all know that the precise opposite is the fact. And we have spent a
good amount of energy to repetitively quote the subsections of para 72 in
this regard.

I think that an important task at this meeting is to politically challenge
this 'establishment view' of what is the WSIS mandate for the IGF. It will
be good to propose setting aside a complete session to discuss the Tunis
agenda para 72 threadbare, and in its light see what formats etc are good
for the IGF. I appeal to the members attending the meeting to ask for this
special session. It will give political legitimacy and substance to our
demands. 

No one is advocating that we get so much caught into 'substantial outputs'
agenda that we get trapped into a typical UN style nitpicking text
negotiation rounds. We are aware that that's not what IGF is. But it isnt
what the present establishment is making it out to be either. We need to
find the balance, and for this first of all to sit with an open mind to all
possibilities.

Carlos has made some great points, and so have many others on this list. I
am in particular enclosing an email of Bertrand's. I am also enclosing my
organization's submission for the synthesis paper. 

One last point, I think we should also insist on more stable and legitimate
(and not just private, and pro bono) sources of funding for the IGF, which
alone will allow it to fulfill its mandate.

Thanks.

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: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:29 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva
> 
> Carlos's message is worth discussing seriously. I have done him the
> favor of changing the header.
> 
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://www.digital-convergence.org
> http://www.internetgovernance.org
> 
> >>> ca at rits.org.br 02/08/07 8:16 PM >>>
> In the meantime, a group of countries tries to get organized to insist
> that the IGF should be mainly a space for ICANN bashing and/or
> replacement, while other groups are preparing to propose that the main
> topics in Rio should be exactly the same as in Athens. A majority
> (Brazil not included) of GRULAC (the Latin American and Caribbean
> government group at the UN) members, for example, insist the agenda for
> Rio should be exactly as it was for Athens -- that generic, almost
> useless group of four topics: open standards, access, security,
> diversity... the weather, soccer, who won the lotto... If we continue
> this trend, we better turn IGF into an international old-timers' chat
> space (sponsored by the UN!) like the Brazilian Academy of Letters or
> some other sleepy, tea-soaked thing -- this way we would not need to
> worry about it anymore.
> 
> 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. These would constitute the official set of recommendations
> from IGF.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:31:54 +0530
Size: 38458
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070212/4d62590a/attachment.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ITfC's contribution to IGF's Stock Taking Meeting
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 18178 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070212/4d62590a/attachment.obj>