[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Parminder wrote:
> As Jeremy says, and was said by a few more, lets not take the schedule as
> given. It is an input doc from the secretariat; we will give another one
> from IGC. Any institution has self-preserving, status-quoists and low risk
> taking attributes..... 


I think arguing against the four main themes is the wrong target. The 
advantage of having broad themes such as access, openness and the like 
is that they offer interpretative flexibility. There is hardly anything 
that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas. We should treat them as 
containers we can fill! As a side note, its worth keeping in mind that 
the IGF is supposed to have a strong developmental dimension. It is 
important that our suggestions reflect this dimension.

What we really should focus on in my view is to get all elements
of the IGF's mission to be taken into account. It would be good to do 
this in a way that doesn't antagonize everybody. A compromise I could 
imagine is to suggest topics not only for plenary sessions but also for 
workshops.

jeanette




civil society has its core business in challenging
> that in the wider public interest. IGC need not act as a facilitating group
> for whatever the secretariat decides. We have our position, let them decide
> what to do about it.
> 
> If you read the secretariat doc, it says in its second sentence that it is
> more about structure than content. Why should then we give them more than
> they seek?
> 
> About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions used
> the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make it
> clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four
> themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad subjects
> like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious
> deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are
> asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy deliberations
> seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of itself
> analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between
> extant institutions etc.
> 
> These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given to it
> by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the interests
> on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am
> willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on some
> teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's
> governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some vested
> interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent
> email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which we
> hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a strong
> point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from the
> main debates.'
> 
> 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: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
>> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:01 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola
>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
>>
>> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>>> In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being
>>>> suggested
>>>> for plenary/ main sessions.
>>> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: it seemed to me that we would ask
>>> "a main session" to be specifically devoted to each of the four issues -
>>> that would make four new main sessions to be added to the already
>>> scheduled ones, and there's no space for this to happen in the schedule.
>> But as I and others have been saying, forget about the schedule.  There
>> are many ways in which room could be made.  For example, lose the speed
>> dialogue sessions on access/openness/security/diversity, and use those
>> sessions for what we propose instead.  Or indeed, vice versa; there is
>> no reason why the thematic emphasis needs to be the same every year.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
____________________________________________________________
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