[governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF

Parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Dec 31 04:18:49 EST 2009

Hi All

While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position 
on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list 
so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position.

I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed 
to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we 
have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have 
a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of 
government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete 
suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ 
discussion on IGF continuation  finally comes up at the UN general 
assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the 
process will go forward).

While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had 
pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing  - the 
danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be 
closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to 
propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we 
breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as 
statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting 
down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it.

One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even 
diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general 
assembly resolution  for  more stable public/ UN funding  for the IGF  
(which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot 
down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the 
trust fund  (status quoist)  was adopted. One can clearly see here who 
calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing.

So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the 
kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new 
options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some 
possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have 
earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a 
clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, 
including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF 
mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There 
could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe 
speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear 
of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov 

Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010!


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:

More information about the Governance mailing list