[governance] IGF workshop approval criteria

Guru@ITfC guru at itforchange.net
Sun Jun 17 06:37:59 EDT 2007

I too think that the jump from 'cooperation amongst multiple stakeholders'
to 'co-sponsorship of multiple stakeholders' is a bit too long and also does
not follow. 

And I too had the same thought .... To form ITfC Inc (or Guru Inc) and make
it a co-sponsor too!!  To make it critical for CS groups based in the south
to have private players as co-sponsors is in a way (without intending to)
making their participation quite difficult. Considering that some of us have
consistently advocated a relook at the business / market roles in the
governance spaces, it would be unrealistic to expect big private players to
rush to embrace us. Specially where we do not have any real or lasting
interactions/relationships with any of them to expect that they would
develop any great understanding or sympathy for our positions.

It would be far more meaningful to instead if we could rather insist on
multistakeholder panels so that we hear views from different groups .... 


-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] 
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:47 PM
To: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop approval criteria

Hi Jeanette,

On 6/16/07 11:34 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> I feel tempted to point out basic truths: the simple reason why we 
> advocate the multi-stakeholder approach is that many issues cannot be 
> solved without boundary crossing cooperation involving multiple actors.
> The IGF is a space to facilitate this kind of exercise. There are plenty
>   of venues for discussions we want to have among ourselves...

Nobody would argue with these points, but the co-sponsorship principle does
not necessarily follow from them.  They are arguments for multistakeholder
panels and dialogues.  This was achieved last year by many workshops that
had single species or entity sponsorship, and there's no reason to believe
the same wouldn't be true this year if organizers were simply told that they
need multistakeholder, multi-perspective panels.

Parminder and I raised several concerns and I don't feel that anyone has
really tried to respond to them seriously.  Instead we've gotten religious
statements that it must be this way because it must be this way, or
assurances that it's really not hard (I'm guessing, from people who are not
presently engaged in trying to line up MS for "controversial" topics), or
offers that one could meet the requirement by simply listing someone's
private consultancy as representing industry  (would the mAG really accept,
say, Lee McKnight Ltd. as a substitute for the ICC or Cisco?  If so great,
any of us who consult can just list ourselves as representing both CS and
private sector).  Sorry if I don't find such statements responsive and

Anyway, please do get an extension then.



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