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

[Izumi AIZU]

I tend to agree with Adam, too.

However, I also think the process/structure question is important
and worth to discuss, I don't think it's a waste of time, but substantive
discussion on issues and contents/programs/speakers are of
equal, if not more, importance for us.

Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and
proceed both? Or am I naiive that we first need to resolve the process in
order to  proceed to the substance?

I don't think so.

izumi

2007/6/1, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> >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
> needed.
>
> 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
> anyone?)
>
>
> >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
> >manner.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Agree.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >Willie
> >
> >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:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
                      >> Izumi Aizu <<

             Institute for HyperNetwork Society
             Kumon Center, Tama University
                             * * * * *
              << Writing the Future of the History >>
                               www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
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