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

Lee McKnight LMcKnigh at syr.edu
Mon Jun 4 12:30:47 EDT 2007


Bertrand,

I alson agree that organizing the 'Future of the IGF' workshop or whatever title is iinnocuous enough to get on the program, in a multistakeholder fasion, and conducting it as an open Fourm, not just as the usual speakers and audience thing, is a good opportunity.  To argue f2f about what we argue about here. Sorry, I meant debate.  

As to organizing it, collect some names here of org cte volunteers, individuals and co-sponsoring institutions, I presume you can represent the French state/maybe also eu, and there you go.  

To avoid the mag selection debate for what is after all just the usually thankless job of organizaing a workshop, I suggest you take all volunteers (I recuse myself cleverly for having suggested this method ; ).

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 6/4/2007 2:22 AM >>>
Fair questions, Izumi,

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

My spontaneous answer is :
- both issues (process/structure and content/speakers) must be dealt with at
the same time, in a co-evolving manner , but nothing is a prerequisite
for discussing the speakers for Rio,
- as a matter of fact, the IGF process is an issue that the IGF can discuss
itself, and the emerging "fifth theme", will necessarily evolve towards
that,
- in terms of "mechanisms to separate the two issues" (of process and
substance), the first method is to continue separate threads on this list,
the other one is to help those interested to interact more closely on these
topics.

To echo Adam's comment, it may also be time to make this discussion a bit
more multi-stakeholder. Although I know a certain number of government
representatives are actually lurking on this list (and that's good), they do
not feel comfortable expressing themselves.

Would people be interested in a workshop in Rio on these issues ? how could
it be prepared ? Could it have a more "open Forum format" to engage as many
participants as possible, rather than a mere "panel" type ?

Nowhere else than on this list has the discussion been conducted on these
themes at that level of depth. Those interested could discuss this on a
specific thread. The Giganet is also obviously a space gathering academics
interested in those issues. Likewise for the IGP. I am certain some
government representatives would be willing to get involved in a sincere
discussion. We certainly can find a few actors to co-organize something.

The key challenge will be to frame the process discussion in a way
that covers the preoccupation of the different parties. This means both a
workshop title and a list of sub-themes or facets.

Let's think about it.

Best

Bertrand


On 6/1/07, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>
> 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 
>



-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
____________________________________________________________
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



More information about the Governance mailing list