[governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of

[Ginger Paque]

"I will be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural 
reform of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators."

Hi Jeremy,
If you would like to undertake this project, I suggest you form a 
working group with interested people from the list, and then post your 
suggestions to the list for consideration. I think it might be more 
efficient than undertaking it on the whole list.

Best, Ginger





Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 28/11/2009, at 10:04 PM, Parminder wrote:
>
>> After some very muted response to the 'enhanced cooperation' debate - 
>> which is the WSIS designated space for such public policy development 
>> - CS now once again seems content to see the whole IGF review issue 
>> from a status quo-ist lens - 'somehow block an ITU take over'  (we 
>> have, in very early parts of our statement, spoken strongly against 
>> making any such move). In such a reactive stance, any openness 
>> towards seeking genuine structural reform in the IGF for the purpose 
>> of achieving the real purpose of the IGF seems largely absent.
>
> Yes, I was disappointed with the blandness of the IGC statement which 
> was basically status-quoism: we support the continuation of the IGF, 
> we support multi-stakeholderism (and it should be deepened and 
> enlarged, but no suggestion of what this means), we underline the 
> importance of human rights, and we support the continuation of the 
> Secretariat in its present form.  Well, its present form is really 
> pretty lousy in a lot of ways, so I disagree with that - and 
> otherwise, the statement might as well have said that we support apple 
> pie and kittens.
>
>> We also think that MAG has to take on more substantial role/ power, 
>> of  distilling from the work of committed issue-based working groups 
>> as well proceedings of the wider IGF, and come out with non-binging 
>> advices and recommendations, or at least meaningful compilation of 
>> plausible views and options on important IG issues. The WGIG model 
>> ,which for some unknown reasons (the hegemony of dominant discourse, 
>> of course) has become untouchable, gives us good leads of what can be 
>> achieved if a mutlistakeholder group is given a definite task, where 
>> some kind of outcomes just have to be produced in a time bound 
>> manner. Why should that model not be used for important IG issues 
>> within the IGF framework?
>
> This should have been in the IGC statement.
>
>> Anyway, the burden of the argument here is that a model of structural 
>> changes to the IGF is what is most required urgently. Much of the 
>> negotiations in the next few months will take place around that. Does 
>> the IGC want to hammer out a concrete proposal on this, and its 
>> members try to advocate it with other actors? If we plan to do it, we 
>> need to do it in the next month or so. I propose that the 
>> co-coordinators take up this responsibility in the coming weeks.
>
> I agree.  I have, of course, written a great deal on this (the book 
> that came out of my PhD thesis is now available under Creative Commons 
> at http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook, and for a more digestible 
> precis see last year's paper that the IGP put out at 
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf).  I will 
> be happy to collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform 
> of the IGF, under the leadership of the coordinators.
>
____________________________________________________________
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