[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[Parminder]

> I don't understand why this is mysterious.  In the draft there are twelve
> sessions devoted to the four "Athens themes" (I'd like to refer to them as
> that, rather than having them elevated to something that every IGF must be
> organized around forever more), three on each.  We're asking for them to
> accept doing two on each, eight in all, and devoting four slots to our
> themes. A fairly moderate request, but probably one that will be regarded
> as
> sweeping.   Asking for more would require they throw out wholesale what's
> already been discussed in mAG etc.


Well, I think we still need to come to an understanding about how IGF is
proposed to be structured, and what are we proposing within that structure.
There are two basic kinds of sessions (there are others, but to simplify we
can speak of two here which need to be understood for the present purpose) -
Main sessions (plenaries) and workshops. There are 4 Main sessions will
tentatively have 4 themes of access, diversity, openness and security (apart
form one on emerging trends and reporting back to plenary sessions). And
there is one main session for each theme.

Our suggestion is straightforward - instead of these four session have 4
sessions by the themes we suggest. 

Jeremy, I believe also thinks so, though, it looked at speed session etc
slots and wondered if thast could be additional main sessions or something.
First of all, I don't understand the speed sessions, secondly, they seem to
be connected to the main sessions (for preparations etc as suggested in the
secretariat doc)and are essentially on the same themes.

Other sessions are workshops - some of these workshops HAVE to be connected
to main themes. Others are open, and some reserved for dynamic coalitions.
Now, it is not our intention to get our suggested themes to these workshops
- because (1) these special 'reserved slot' workshops are to be of same 4
themes selected for main sessions (2) there is nothing so special about
them, one can as well hold workshop on practically any good subject, as we
held last time. So, it in NOT AT ALL the point to seek slots in this
workshop space. 

We only have 4 main session themes - and not 8 or 12 or anything. 

We're asking for them to
> accept doing two on each, eight in all, and devoting four slots to our
> themes. A fairly moderate request, but probably one that will be regarded
> as
> sweeping.   Asking for more would require they throw out wholesale what's
> already been discussed in mAG etc.

So we are NOT asking for these four slots as you say.... why ask for them
rather go for open slots as we did the last time. And in nay case the whole
point of these slots being special is that they are reserved for workshops
connected to main themes, so they cannot be asked for by those proposing
other themes. 

Our whole exercise was, and is, to influence the main agenda of Rio by
getting what we want, and what we think is right in wanting, right into the
main agenda which is the four main session themes. I am not sure how
confusion has arisen in this matter. There are no additional themes.
Additional workshop themes were always available, so there is nothing to ask
for in that matter.


> As I feared, I think Parminder's introductory text is too negative in tone
> to attract broad agreement here, too redundant with the themes identified
> thereafter ( do we need to say twice in different ways we want to talk
> about
> the mandate, etc?), and that debating it will slow us down further.  I
> would
> either delete or slim down to a couple of non-accusatory sentences.  Our
> topical suggestions speak for themselves.
>

I agreed when you suggested this thing yesterday. However I saw great
confusion today (Vittorio for instance wasnt clear) on what is it that we
are trying to do, and why....

And then I thought it necessary to argue why access, openness etc themes as
stated are not fine for the plenary - and why should we have the themes as
we suggest. Vittorio is still arguing that to bring in public policy theme
and such others, even in the manner as we explained, somehow means we don't
think access for the disabled, or IPR and consumer protection etc are not
important. So, I was right in trying to explain why simple words like
access, and diversity do not constitute sufficient themes for substantive
discussions. 

> too selective in saying what we think are
> the most important questions,

I don't know what you mean by this. I have only said in the into that IGF is
focusing on its deliberative space nature, and let it do it earnestly. 

too redundant with the themes identified
> thereafter ( do we need to say twice in different ways we want to talk
> about
> the mandate, etc?), and that debating it will slow us down further.  

I needed to say about IGF in the intro because I need to tell them why they
shd include these themes... when it comes as part of theme (4) that's
different (even if apparently redundant) 

I
> would
> either delete or slim down to a couple of non-accusatory sentences.  Our
> topical suggestions speak for themselves.
>

I am fine with any suggestions. But do you still think, after seeing
Vittorio's email, that topical suggestions speak for themselves ??? after
first agreeing that it may not be needed, I put the explanation only whne I
thought the logic needs to be spoken of.

Last, what you speaking of as a negative tone, is something I had no option
but to use.... I think IGF is being hijacked (you also said so in the email
in which you said you may now be favorably disposed to the idea of making it
an Internet facilitation forum). I feel that the way this is adding to the
global governance deficit (you also know the issues about GAID) is  a
serious problem. I will certainly speak out against it..

Parminder 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:47 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On 5/7/07 10:01 AM, "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:
> 
> > However, I think that in this case we first need an introductory
> > sentence that says something like "we think that rather having four
> > broad sessions it would be better to have four focused ones on specific
> > topics for each theme" (in your version) or "we think that in addition
> > to the four broad sessions we would like to see more sessions focused on
> > specific topics" (in Jeremy's). By the way, I am not too sure about the
> > first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true
> > that there are many different participants with many different pet
> > issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well.
> 
> I don't understand why this is mysterious.  In the draft there are twelve
> sessions devoted to the four "Athens themes" (I'd like to refer to them as
> that, rather than having them elevated to something that every IGF must be
> organized around forever more), three on each.  We're asking for them to
> accept doing two on each, eight in all, and devoting four slots to our
> themes. A fairly moderate request, but probably one that will be regarded
> as
> sweeping.   Asking for more would require they throw out wholesale what's
> already been discussed in mAG etc.
> 
> > I think that we should not talk by slogans and accusations. I think that
> > the IGF should have a way to generate practical outcomes and I see that
> > some parties have been trying to oppose that by all means, but
> > attributing the lack of this capability to the overall bad faith of the
> > people you are talking to won't make it easier for them to sympathize
> > with your request.
> 
> As I feared, I think Parminder's introductory text is too negative in tone
> to attract broad agreement here, too selective in saying what we think are
> the most important questions, too redundant with the themes identified
> thereafter ( do we need to say twice in different ways we want to talk
> about
> the mandate, etc?), and that debating it will slow us down further.  I
> would
> either delete or slim down to a couple of non-accusatory sentences.  Our
> topical suggestions speak for themselves.
> 
> BD
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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