[governance] Programme outline and schedule released

[William Drake]

Hi,

The focus is once again on issues rather than institutions, challenges and
priorities generally rather than actual IG mechanisms and practices
specifically.  So, for example, the session on Access reads like an Enabling
Environment discussion of the need for flexible, pro-innovation national
policies to tackle digital divides, rather than of internationally
applicable shared rule systems, or the lack thereof in some dimensions, that
impact access.  The same goes for the other themes.  International
frameworks (public and private sector) may get mentioned as part of a
broader mix, but there will not be a focused debate on what are the
applicable IG mechanisms, how well do they work, how might they be improved,
how do they hang together and what sort of ordering do they create
collectively, etc.  Which is not to say that the proposed topics are not
interesting and important, or that we won't all have a good time in Rio.
It's just not about IG as defined and debated in WSIS, or the IGF mandate as
proposed by WGIG and evolved in Tunis.

I don't recall for sure but think it was Vint Cerf who suggested that we
ought to change the name of the IGF to Internet Facilitation Forum or some
such thing.  I remember thinking at the time, here's yet another effort to
take governance off the table.  But now I'm warming to the idea, since it
generally makes sense to have some correspondence between categories and
meaning.  Why say you're doing x when you're really doing y?  If x is just
too 'controversial' and 'sensitive' for the parties to agree to even discuss
in a public setting, pretending otherwise just dilutes the conception of x
confuses things in a way that impedes coherent discussion elsewhere.  It
feels like we're moving back to the status quo ante-WSIS.

Anyway, this would seem to have two practical consequences.  First, given
the way that the program is specified in the 6th section on Content, I don't
see how any of the themes we've discussed proposing could be accommodated in
the main sessions.  All four themes are probably too orthogonal no matter
how we wordsmith their descriptions.  So the choices would seem to be a)
abandon the effort, b) adapt the proposal to reality, or c) frame it in a
sort of "we would have liked to have had plenary discussions on the
following but see this won't be happening' sort of manner, which I imagine
some would say is too negative etc.  Moreover, given the diversity of views
now reflected in the caucus, I suspect that to approve language we'd have to
use the voting mechanism.  Since the consultation's in just a couple of
weeks and these things would take time, I would suggest that there's no more
room for languid discussion involving only a handful of people, and that our
co-chairs would need to take the temperature and actively drive the process,
now, if it seems that there's sufficient interest to try something.

Second, if we really want to foster dialogue on the four themes proposed,
probably we ought to consider proposing workshops on each.  This could be
done in addition to or instead of making a statement about the plenaries.
If it's impossible for the caucus to agree on such workshops, then varying
coalitions of the willing could evolve each, perhaps with the caucus/list
serving as initial facilitators.

Cheers,

Bill

On 5/1/07 1:48 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote:

> For those who haven't seen them, the IGF Secretariat has just released a
> draft programme outline and schedule for the Rio meeting which are
> linked from its Web site at http://www.intgovforum.org.
> 
> As we might have expected, they do not provide any plenary sessions for
> the discussion of the IGF's role, Internet resource management, or
> future Internet governance arrangements.  And rather than reducing the
> overlap between sessions, there is now more overlap; with between six
> and seven concurrent streams.  These include a new session for meetings
> of dynamic coalitions, and a new "open forum/best practices forum".
> 
> I don't think that I have said so yet, but I am happy with Parminder's
> suggestions for input into the May consultations, as amended in the
> light of others' comments, and would hope that consensus can be reached
> on it before 17 May so that it can be reflected in the synthesis paper
> rather than only being presented verbally.


____________________________________________________________
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