[governance] Proposals for Restructuring of the IGF

[Ginger Paque]

Fearghas pointed out that I did not really start a new thread earlier: I just changed the subject line. To make this appear in the archive as a new thread, I have started a "real" new thread here for the discussion, and copied Ian's and Fouad's latest posts below. Sorry for the confusion. gp

Fouad Bajwa said:

A problem I've witnessed from this year's participation in MAG
meetings is that we IGC representatives don't have much to represent
during the MAG meetings because the only statements that come out of
us are at the Open Consultations with the Stakeholders prior to the
MAG meetings.

When the MAG meetings are proceeding, we have more statements from
networks such as APC and stances we reach agreements to over morning
meetings prior to the meeting but no collective agenda with respect to
the IGC and its stakeholders. This has to be first corrected within
the IGC that we prepare our statements collectively together and are
prepared for both Open Consultations and MAG meetings.

That statements prepared after consensus agreed, we should then take
this issues to the table. For example, this year the most important
items were Human/Internet Rights and the Development Agenda. Frankly
speaking we need such a mention in our statements that I also
commented on in the main session on WSIS Principles this year in
Sharam. We need the IGF secretariat to hear our continuous
recommendation to change the title of main sessions now, it enough for
4 IGFs and now we should have the pressing issues in place that we as
stakeholders of the multistakeholderism want to deliberate on.

We need this change from within IGC to the IGF..........I hope you
understand what I mean that

1. We have to be more organized and prepared with our joint statements
for Open Consultations and MAG Meetings because IGC members are in
both settings and the IGC needs should go through!

2. We have to get the IGF Secretariat to understand that its about
time to have two main session changes to a. Human Rights in the age of
Internet and b. Internet Governance Development Agenda IG4D

Finally we need collective, inclusive, consensus on that we want to
take the above forward from IGC and that each member in the Open
Consultations and the MAG meetings will back this and we should have
the backing statements and mutual agreement for the interventions and
counter arguments.

Jeremy, this is what I was discussing with you on our way back to
Cairo from Sharam!

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Just to guide discussion here -
>
> This will be the fourth statement on IGF review from IGC in the last 12
> months or so. The last one can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30
>
> I would suggest that we get the best intelligence we can on what is being
> proposed by other parties and the likely outcomes and changes which are
> being discussed. If our MAG members can assist with that, that would be
> great. I see little point in recycling our past statements again unless
> there are new possibilities and issues that we should address. What we
> probably need more is short sharp responses to specific proposals or
> potential changes.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________
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