[governance] IGC review

[Parminder]

IGC members,

 

Something tells me that it is the right time for all of us – at least those
of us who care enough about this group – to take up a comprehensive review
of the IGC in a back-to-basics/ bare-all spirit. We need to examine what we
are here for, how well we are doing it, and which direction should we go
from here. We did very briefly try some such review during the face-to-face
IGC meeting at Rio, but the time was too short for anything worthwhile, and
the participants’ minds and energies were mostly occupied with what was
happening in the IGF. However some concrete suggestions did come up, and I
as a co-coordinator promised to initiate a discussion on the IGC email list
on rethinking/ restructuring IGC.

 

We all can see that there is a certain limbo that this group is at present
caught in. Apart from some continued high quality discussions there appears
to be not much will and/or energy vis-à-vis an activist advocacy role in
this group, which is one of its primary mandate as per the charter adopted
in 2005 ( pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ).
For instance, we are not making much progress towards developing a caucus
position for the very important Feb. consultations for the IGF. I had given
out a call seeking volunteers for the position of co-coordinator, and I have
only received one name till now.  

 

Many members who had earlier been very involved in active advocacy kind of
roles seem to have reduced their involvement and many other members who are
very involved in discussions on this list seem to either not commit
themselves to participating in activist roles of developing common positions
etc, or they are unable yet to figure out the best way to do this.  And I
think it is a good time to find out the reasons for this situation in  a
constructive spirit of moving forward with a greater clarity of what is the
best role for this group, and how can that be done most effectively. Such an
exercise will help people shape their involvement (or, well, probably
withdrawal of involvement) in this group. 

 

This in my opinion should be a time for all of us to come out clearly with
how we see this group, and where do we want to take it from here. While this
process may necessarily mean that many contentions would come out in the
open, and we will try to figure out what best can we do about them, we hope
that sufficient amount of civility is maintained in this process. This
doesn’t mean we need to necessarily moderate our views – I think, for a
start, we need some very open and honest discussion here – but only that we
do not get personal and abusive. 

 

While I will come out with my personal views on this subject separately, in
order to set the ball rolling I will mention some of my ‘more neutral’
viewpoints. I think that the politics of technologies (or ICTs) are
impacting our societies in a major way, and unfortunately there is great
lack of awareness (and, consequently, involvement) of the public at large
about how the manner of development of these technologies may underlie the
very shaping of our societies. IGC is one of few public interest groups at
the global level that is active in this very important area. Lack of public
interest advocacy and involvement, which is what our inactivity/ abdication
will contribute to, will make for dominant interests shaping the world in
manner that serves their interests even more. All of us who fear this
possibility, while also seeing the opportunity in the new technologies for a
freer as well as a more equal and just world, and have some knowledge,
expertise and ‘positions/ connections/ linkages’ in this area, should
sincerely explore how best can we further the public interest through this
group. On the process side, IGC also represents a unique experiment in
global civil society organization, and it is up to us to prove that such new
networked forms of civil society organization and advocacy can be
successful. 

 

Recent emails by Garth and Dan, among others, do discuss some of the issues
mentioned above. Hopefully we can have some involved discussions in the next
few weeks on these issues which may help us focus and structure IGC more
purposefully.  

 

Parminder 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080114/4af84cfb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080114/4af84cfb/attachment.txt>