[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Fri Jun 1 10:31:09 EDT 2007

At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote:


>What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is 
>distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more 
>properly be discussing the programme:

Couldn't agree more.  We are wasting time and opportunities.

Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another 
couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is 

We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF.  There is no agenda. 
There are no speakers.  There is a call for workshops, but we do not 
know on what subjects.  We have been told some workshops will be 
linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these 
linked "sub-theme" workshops.

Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we 
should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical 
Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of 
"best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas 
for workshops, these are things we do well.

On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the 
one who wanted the IGF.  Other stakeholders took it as a compromise, 
IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from 
happening. They aren't going to move where want on process.  Our 
egalitarian vision isn't really shared.

And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil 
society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look 
at Openness in particular, btw <igf-greece2006.org> is now being 
parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working 
groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF 
itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we 
were at the end of the Tunis Summit.

I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate 
discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop 
proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners.   These are 
200-300 person meeting rooms.  Quite large.  And free (no fee.)

No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet 
Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC 

>if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly 
>should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of 
>outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's  'messages from the 
>IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What 
>other issues are there which could be matched with specific 
>provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome 
>that could be contained in a 'message'?

What's wrong with just better reporting.  Can giganet provide 
rapporteurs?  They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not 
use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to 
encourage more dynamic coalitions.

>I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN 
>SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should  move on 
>to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with 
>Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings 
>of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy 
>war with the US, with  Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as 
>potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of 
>substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think 
>we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil 
>society liasion for the Rio iGF  asap. And we should communicate 
>formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A 
>communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how 
>to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable 

I would turn this around.  If we are going to make a proposal on 
process, begin by working with the other stakeholders. 
Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder.

Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least 
to the EU governments?  If not, we'll be wasting our time sending 
anything to the Secretary General.  We might even do ourselves harm 
by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary 
General proposes isn't what we asked for.

>There is only a month to get this together and given how long the 
>IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste.




>Sent via ...  deleted :-)
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:

More information about the Governance mailing list