[governance] IGC sponsored IGF workshops

Meryem Marzouki marzouki at ras.eu.org
Wed Jun 20 13:44:31 EDT 2007

Le 20 juin 07 à 04:10, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :

> Parminder wrote:
>> So, the point is - does the caucus want to sponsor a workshop on  
>> IGF's role
>> and mandate. If we don't it appears no one else is going to. I  
>> would think
>> the secretariat itself should do it.
> I would answer yes, and am happy to be delegated any tasks required  
> to help organise it, though I don't have too many high-level  
> contacts in government or the private sector.

Despite the cautious silence on the list (but not in private  
mails...) on this issue of IGF's role and mandate, I would also say  
that such a workshop is needed, besides the (academic) papers  
expected on one of Giganet symposium's panel on this issue, which  
explicitely seeks, inter alia, "Case studies based on critical  
examination of the IGF, the multistakeholder partnership  
process" (see the CFP at: http://www.igloo.org/giganet).

Assuming that this caucus agrees to sponsor this workshop - which is  
by no mean guaranteed -, the tricky issue would be to find co- 
sponsors: I take for granted that no governement would sign on this,  
and the same goes for private sector, not to mention IGOs. Whatever  
they think on IGF, they simply cannot do this.
So the only way to avoid the "MAG" refusing this workshop on  
"objective" criteria related to lack of MS-sponsorship would indeed  
be to ask the secretariat to co-sponsor this workshop as part of a  
sane reflexive exercise (and probably as a good way to awake the UN  
Secretary-General and show him that he should decide something  
regarding IGF). And why not replacing this discussion in the whole  
framework of the UN reform started in 1997? After all, Nitin Desai  
himself was, from 1998 to 2003, an advisory board member of UNFIP,  
one of the instruments set up in the context of this reform, that I  
mentioned in a previous message discussing the IGF MS funding proposal.

This would make this proposal a very interesting workshop. And, if  
"IGF's role and mandate" is likely to frighten, including members of  
this caucus, we could find a "safer" title and description for it.

The question remains: would members of this caucus agree that its  
coordinators approach the secretariat to discuss such a proposal.

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