[governance] IGF public consultation

[Parminder]

> Is this communiqué public?  If not, how can we discuss it?

This is the same announcement from the UN that you forwarded to the list,
and was discussed here. Your email is enclosed for the reference of
others...

> So while it may *seem* that asking for outlandish reforms is impolitic
> or will make us look foolish to other stakeholders, it ain't necessarily
> so.  Often our thinking is just in advance of that of others.

Very right. And civil society as a non-institutional player, with fewest
constraints that come through having interests in maintaining institutional
inertias, is expected to do the forward thinking, and while staying
strategic, it should not be too constrained with what may look immediately
unlikely. It is our work to put our finger on the changes which we will like
to see carried through and then look at the range of possible practical and
immediate steps. 

________________________________________________
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: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:23 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF public consultation
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> > For instance, we need discussions on the
> > issue of the UN communiqué raising issues of rotation, transparency etc
> in
> > IGF and MAG, and of giving the issue new consideration after Rio.
> 
> Is this communiqué public?  If not, how can we discuss it?
> 
> Anyway, what I took away from the September open consultation was how
> almost everything that civil society agitates for seems eventually to be
> taken up by other stakeholder groups, or even by the Secretariat, some
> months later.  For example:
> 
> * Criteria for accreditation of dynamic coalitions is something we asked
>    for last year, which, out of the blue, Markus Kummer has recognised
>    the need for this week;
> 
> * Back in February we suggested a main session should be held on the
>    role and mandate of the IGF, and lo and behold, Brazil has now
>    suggested "a main session dedicated to the future of the IGF ... with
>    a view to the full implementation of the IGF mandate";
> 
> * In the last consultations, much the same happened with our previous
>    suggestions about the need for the IGF to produce reports with its
>    conclusions, and the need for the dynamic coalitions to take the lead
>    in producing tangible outcomes for the IGF;
> 
> * Not so much something that the IGC has spoken about, but I've written
>    about the eventual need for the IGF to become independent from the UN,
>    and even this has been acknowledged by Nitin Desai this week:
> 
> 	At the moment, this process is constituted as an instruction to
> 	the Secretary-General to call a meeting and constitute an
> 	Advisory Group. That's the formal status of this meeting. It's a
> 	meeting called by the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
> 	I'm talking of the main IGF. Because that's the way in which
> 	that mandate was specified. But [reform] is a long-term issue.
> 	It certainly needs to be looked at.
> 
> So while it may *seem* that asking for outlandish reforms is impolitic
> or will make us look foolish to other stakeholders, it ain't necessarily
> so.  Often our thinking is just in advance of that of others.
> 
> --
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] IGF/MAG renewal an opaque and non-incluse process / un processus opague et non-inclusif]
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:18:36 +0530
Size: 67855
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070905/e3589f25/attachment.eml>