[governance] IGF consultations - attn CS MAG members

[Ken Lohento]

Thank you for your note and the effort, Parminder. The need to move 
beyond the four classic themes has been well kept I think, same for the 
working group idea. A Pandora box might be indeed opened and we (IGC) 
probably have further suggestions to provide regarding that. It's the 
renewed MAG that will formally decide on them (content wise). After this 
meeting the mandate of this MAG will end and I hope the 
renewal/reconstitution will happen very quickly to help the whole process.

KL

Parminder a écrit :
> Hi All
>
> Will report on how the open consultations went in some detail a little
> later. This is quick email between flights to see if I can reach some
> message to the CS members inside MAG, as closed consultations are on. My
> hope is that some important direction for future IGFs may need to be decided
> now, in these consultations. 
>
> A couple of things from the open consultations yesterday.  
>
> One thing most people said, loud and clear, was that we shd not be having
> main session of the same themes again. Nitin captured this sentiment in his
> summing, and said something to the effect that yes, we cant keep discussing
> the same things every year, and most people think we should move on.. I have
> noticed that Nitin is quite strategic in the manner he words his summing up,
> and one can see glimpses of what may be coming in the manner issues are
> spoken of by him in this summing up. 
>
> So, I think it will be quite difficult for the MAG not to respond to this
> sentiment of not having main sessions with broad themes, as existing. And
> moving on to more focused issues. But it is easier said than done. A Pandora
> box will be opened here, and Nitin and secretariat realizes this.  But this
> moving on to more specific issues is important to get more form the IGF. We
> should see how we can best help things to 'move over' - pushing for things
> strategically, but also choosing our objectives cautiously, within the scope
> of possible, for each stage that we face.
>
> So, I think the kind of things we should focus on are
>
> (1) Insisting that it just has to be main sessions based on focused and
> specific issues this time. Too many people have spoken for it
>
> (2) Have a two way IGF structure - the main sessions plus thematic workshops
> as a kind of core IGF that is outcome oriented, and the other part of an
> open forum which continues to be a open place for many kinds of internet
> related issues that are decided and brought to the IGF bottom up, by
> different stakeholders. I think if we don't get into this dual structure
> (and corresponding dual thinking) mode we will remain paralyzed by the
> conflicting elements of the binary, and not move any direction from where we
> are. 
>
> (3) There is some momentum for working groups (WGs)... We need to catch that
> momentum now. Though it wont be easy to get this. And I noted that Nitin did
> not catch this element from the consultations in his summing up )(as far as
> I remember) That makes me think he may not be thinking WGs to be possible/
> probable at this stage. But this is our chance to push for them. That will
> be a major structural change in MAG/ IGF, and pave the way for going
> forward. Without WGs we can forget main session on specific themes, that are
> well prepared for etc. MAG in its present form is incapable of doing that
> kind of work ,which requires figuring out details and making decisions at
> many micro levels. Full MAG just can t do it... (remember the time when they
> selected main session speakers)
>
> So, in fact all the three points, of main session to be with specific
> subjects/ issues, a dual structure or the IGF, and WGs are linked, and parts
> on one whole, of what IGF can be, moving on from where it is. I don't see
> any other way it can change in any meaningful way.
>
> My two cents. Thanks 
>
> Parminder 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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