[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
Lee McKnight
LMcKnigh at syr.edu
Mon May 7 10:26:41 EDT 2007
Hi folks,
Been travelling and just jumping back in with some not fully thought
through responses I admit since I haven'y digested thoughts and info.
1) I think we can claim that our four suggested plenary topics for
discussions fit within the 4 main categories of access, open, etc.
Just be Sure to start the appropriate submission topic with with the
Word 'Open' for example ; )
2) Also, I was hanging with Bob Kahn some last week, he pointed
out/reminded me that the 'digital object identifier' or handle system
that he's been championing forever is larger than the DNS. And I guess
he felt it had been a bit neglected by folks like us though he didn't
say that.
But Bob did agree in principle to participate if it were included at
igf II, and I can see it fitting in nicely in the proposed survey of
internet governance institutions plenary session. Oh, and he also
thought it was silly to not talk about ICANN, which of course it would
be. So let's just keep wordsmithing the thing to a point that it is
acceptable collectively to us, more or less. If MAG decides to do
something else fine, well not really but it's not for igc to do the
mag's work.
Lee
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> parminder at itforchange.net 5/7/2007 9:57 AM >>>
> There is hardly anything
> that cannot be discussed under these umbrellas.
Yes, true. That exactly is the problem with these themes. If you were
to
organize an event aiming at meaningful deliberation, with some outputs,
will
you choose some umbrella topics under which ' There is hardly anything
> that cannot be discussed' . I wont.
> We should treat them as
> containers we can fill!
Treating 2 hour sessions as containers anyone can fill with anything
is
disastrous. And we saw that at Athens.
> 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.
I have personally made sure that each theme - and its elaboration - has
a
strong development dimension.
A compromise I could
> imagine is to suggest topics not only for plenary sessions but also
for
> workshops.
We all know that's always an option. Right now we are trying to
influence
the main agenda of IGF, and its purposive-ness in line with its
mandate.
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: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 3:46 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Cc: 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'Vittorio Bertola'
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
>
>
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list