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

[Fouad Bajwa]

I would like to join in on this discussion regarding Jeremy's
suggestion "to collaborate on developing proposals for structural
reform of the IGF".

Here are my ideas:

-- Within the multistakeholder model and the IGC as key stakeholder
within multistakeholderism in IGF cannot propose a single structural
model because its members coming from various Civil Society
backgrounds, developing/developed region contexts and perceptions on
Internet Governance will present varying needs. This can be collected
through a possible survey and various models can be presented.

-- Despite discussion on the list of varying positions and/or
possibilities, such a suggestion document should not be conclusive of
the model because within the multistakeholder model, we are one part
of it, the other parts are the Governments and Private Sector, roles
and positions that cannot be dis-accounted.

-- Instead of falling into the working group whirlwind, we should
start a separate discussion thread with a suggested title "Suggestions
for Structural Reforms of IGF" and all members should be free to post
their thoughts on this. There thoughts be collected and put together
in a document that can after the consensus of IGF members be forwarded
to the IGF Secretariat for sharing with the other stakeholders because
involvement of other stakeholders from within the multistakeholders
will eventually happen despite the fact we want it or not.

I am in and support the separate discussion list on this issue with no
working group and then the coordinators putting together the
suggestions and sharing them finally with the IGC list before
submitting them to the IGF secretariat.

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Advisor & Researcher
ICT4D & Internet Governance
Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
My Blog: Internet's Governance
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets:
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
MAG Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA


On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your postings on this idea. It does seem that:
>
> --Varying positions and/or possibilities will probably have to be
> represented.
>
> --The results would ultimately have to be discussed on the list.
>
> --A working group could be formed OR
>
> --A separate thread for the discussion could be started, so that those who
> do not want to take active part could still follow the discussion.
>
> Will those who are interested in taking up Jeremy's suggestion "to
> collaborate on developing proposals for structural reform of the IGF" please
> make their interest known?
>
> Best, Ginger
>
> Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> I agree that this discussion should take place on the list...
>
> If it doesn't take place on the list now then in all likelihood the
> discussion on the results of the Working Group would ultimately be that open
> discussion in any case.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Souter [mailto:david.souter at runbox.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of
>
____________________________________________________________
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