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

Tue Dec 1 15:46:23 EST 2009

Ginger,

It seems to me that, given IGC's quasi-recognition by IGF as being 
representative of civil society (David Souter's apt phraseology), any 
discussion regarding recommendations for the restructuring of the IGF 
emanating from this list will be of rather central importance to 
members of the list.

Therefore I would argue that any such discussion be held on this list 
rather than on a separate thread.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:32 PM -0430 12/1/09, Ginger Paque 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>mailto:david.souter at runbox.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:49 AM
>>To: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org; 
>>'Ginger Paque'
>>Subject: RE: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of
>>
>>
>>Ginger:
>>
>>There are, I would expect, many different viewpoints on this list concerning
>>structural reform of the IGF, some of which are going to be incompatible.  I
>>would have thought that the IGC would want to capture their diversity and
>>reflect quite widely on them; certainly if it wants to move towards
>>consensus rather than a contest between competing visions.  This is
>>particularly important, I would have thought, given the quasi-recognition
>>which the IGC has as being representative of civil society within the IGF.
>>
>>I would be interested to know whether others think it better to conduct a
>>discussion on this in a working group or on the whole list.  If a working
>>group is preferred, would it not be better for you as coordinator to ask
>>list participants to identify themselves if they would be interested in
>>participating?  Those who are interested could then choose their own working
>>methods and individual roles.  Either way, all-list or working group, might
>>it be a good idea to ask all list participants to respond to a series of
>>basic questions, covering both "ideal" and "pragmatic" contexts?
>>
>>
>>Message sent by:
>>
>>David Souter
>>Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd
>>Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University
>>of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and
>>Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International
>>Institute for Sustainable Development
>>
>>145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD
>>(+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line)
>>(+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line)
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ginger Paque [<mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>Sent: 01 December 2009 14:01
>>To: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>Subject: Re: [governance] Statements and Proposals from IGC [was Future of
>>
>>"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>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>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.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>____________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091201/2ffb0fb8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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