[governance] Themes for the coming IGFs

[Jeanette Hofmann]

The whole transcript is worth reading, not only for the content but also 
the structure of the debate: short introductory statements from the 
panelists and equally short interventions from the audience.

Here are two of several highlights for those cannot be bothered to read 
the full transcript:

Bertrand made a very good suggestion:
"The IGF should allow issues to move from the mapping stage, where we 
explore the different dimensions, to basically the setting the goal or 
developing consensus on a goal, towards -- and I take Stephen Lau's 
expression -- synergizing action.  I think what he meant, and correct me 
if I am wrong, by talking about the child pornography is that we have 
actually moved now to a sufficient consensus that this must be addressed 
that we can get, next year, into a more active format.  And I would like 
here to make a suggestion of format.
Some of the rooms here large square tables which can host about 15 
people.  Could we explore a format that would be a group discussion, a 
public group discussion, on this issue, for instance, picking 15 actors 
who have been active in the last three years in one category or the 
other and make them exchange on how to cooperate better later on, 
operationally."

And Nitin wrapped up the session with the following observations:

"What we have succeeded in doing so far is reducing people's 
apprehensions, reducing people's concerns, "Oh, my God, they're going to 
talk about this.  This is going to mean unnecessary interference, et 
cetera, et cetera, unnecessary interference by governments or 
unnecessary interference by NGOs, or unnecessary corporatization," 
whatever.  I think we have managed to get a little bit beyond that, and 
there is much greater sense of trust, if you like, cautious trust, but 
trust, nevertheless.
I think the most important message I get from listening to all of you is 
a sense, to use David's phrase, that we have reached a point of 
inflection, where taking -- defending what we do and the value of what 
we do only in terms of process innovations is not enough, that people 
say now, "What's coming out of this?"  Which is why the question, what 
are you going to take away from this? (...) There's been reference to 
products.  Mr.  Muguet referred to the possibility of dynamic coalitions 
giving recommendations as their recommendations.  Everton Lucero 
referred to the example of the child pornography agreement which was 
reached in Rio.  Can we design something where, at least in a few 
limited, well-defined areas where a process has succeeded in narrowing 
differences, finding consensus, we can come up with something which 
carries a certain legitimacy because it has come from a broader 
multistakeholder process in which the people who have ownership are not 
just governments, but governments, service providers, industry, NGOs, 
and many others?
Yes, it doesn't have to be done for everything.  It may be done only in 
a few areas, like the example that he gave of child pornography.
Should we be thinking in these terms?
And I get the sense that people feel that, look, it's time we started 
thinking about what do we get out of this process.
We don't have to be a legislative process.  All valuable products are 
not necessarily legislative products.
In fact, sometimes the legislative products are of extremely limited value.
The important thing is it must be a product which the people who have 
responsibility for decision take seriously.
And those people may well be Internet Service Providers rather than 
governments.
They may have to take that seriously in implementing it.
So I don't think we have to think in terms of legislation in the usual 
sense of the term.  But reflecting something which is a genuine 
consensus, how do we do that.
People talked in terms of net-based, net groups coming together, 
developing things.
And I think what all this is leading to is trying to look towards a 
richer contributory process to the global IGF, the regional, the 
national IGFs, net-based coalitions developing this work, the dynamic 
coalitions coming up with products.  And creating a space where these 
things will be talked about, will be discussed.
And I would stress once again there are very few fora where these issues 
are actually being discussed in the breadth and depths that we are doing 
here.

jeanette

Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> Meryem Marzouki schrieb:
>> It's the IGF itself that is refusing any tangible outcome.
> 
> You probably have missed the closing session. See what Nitin Desai said at
> the very end: <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/TSAWF.html>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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