[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Mon May 7 11:31:30 EDT 2007
Parminder wrote:
>> 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.
My understanding of the function of the main themes is a different one.
They help structuring the meeting in the way as an academic conference
or a journal would have certain ordering categories. They loosely
predefine the area of discussion and thus provide some structural
continuity but they don't prescribe specific topics. The actual
substance has to be agreed upon each year.
>
>
>> 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.
I didn't find Athens disastrous, and I didn't say that anyone can fill
those containers with anything. I repeat what I said: the main themes
are the wrong target. We need to argue for the entire mission of the IGF.
jeanette
>
>> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list