[governance] Re: SV: IGC statement for open consultation

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

David and all,

  Good points here David!  I couldn't agree more..

David Allen wrote:

> May I suggest some different perspective?
>
> To begin, it is worth to note that _all_ activities start as 'bottoms up' - someone's bright, new idea.  It is the next part that is fateful: does the new effort develop some coherence, and thus begin to produce the results of joint effort, perhaps even significant collaborative work and important or profound results?
>
> That affects in two ways here:
>
> For one, to mix the three sectors together in a DC is only the beginning.  They then have to find enough of a working method so that they get into harness with each other, at least for the task in hand.  Only then - with some coherence - may they produce results.
>
> But beyond an individual DC, all the same holds for IGF, itself.  To put it less happily, a cacophony of heterogeneous 'results' from DC's may not make any coherence for IGF.  Nor will cacophony endear IGF to those who must engage it. Or, to put it more positively, IGF itself needs to achieve some coherence, if it is to produce some result.
>
> Of course all this necessarily begs a question of 'what results are the aim?'  And this of course is a long, debated, hotly political matter.  That however, does not change the fact that 'where are we going' is the bottom line.  As a friend once said, if we don't know where we are going, any road will take us there.
>
> As to whether this matters:  We have just heard, from the floor of the consultation, two commentators, that there remains a question whether governments will engage.  This is three years into a total of five.  And governments start out with the power.  Whether they engage has pivotal effect on outcomes.  Not the least, whether there is actual multi-stakeholderism.
>
> DC's have of course served in an excellent way, to bring the parties together.
>
> To get something done is going to require something additional, effort across time.  That means working groups.  Working groups within a DC are their own, individual affair.
>
> For IGF as a whole, that also means working groups.  That of course is a hot-potato topic - addressed elsewhere.
>
> David
>
> At 11:15 AM +0200 9/14/08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
> >The Dynamic Coaliations (IGF-DC) are real innovations in international policy making. The big difference to "Working Groups" we know from the UN is the open multistakeholder composition, the bottom up approach and the flexible procedures. One of the key procedureal discussion point is now, as I can see it, should we formalize IGF-DCs or not? I think it is too early to push the IGF-DCs into a formal procedure. We have too less experiences and best practices so far. We need a little bit patience and have to wait how the bottom up discussion works and which outcomes are produced. For the moment the only thing I would propose is to define a set of criteria under which a group can be call itself an IGF-DC. Openess, multistakeholder, bottom up, transparent, related to the WSIS process could be some of them.
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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