[governance] IGF Review process - Question 3 (impact)

[Ginger Paque]

Shiva, great that you are addressing this question. Could you please 
synthesize your thoughts into a proposed text to answer Question 3? Thanks.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello,
>  
> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? 
> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? 
> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>  
> IGF, irrespective of its direct impact on the policy making process of 
> Governments, is changing the way Government's perceive Civil Socity 
> involvement in the policy making process. During the preparatory 
> pahase as also during the last three IGFs, Governments had an 
> opportunityh to experience the mutli-stakholder participatory process 
> of the IGF and are becoming comfortable with the process of 
> consultation. This 'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement.
>  
> As for the direct impact, it has been minimal. The policy making 
> process has not sufficiently paid attention to the deliberations at 
> the IGF. A point that I raised at the IGF session at the ICANN meeting 
> may be relevant: 
>  
>
>     (from the meeting transcript)
>      
>     IGF does not have powers to decide, not have the powers to recommend.
>     But at the same time, 2,000 or 3,000 brilliant minds to get together.
>     These are people committed to Internet and they spend three days
>     deliberating on various issues and there could be a way by which
>     session reports could be generated and positions of each stakeholder
>     could be classified and identified, grouped.  And that could become
>     some kind of a reference paper.  It could become a reference document
>     for governments which could -- when it makes decisions, it could refer
>     to that paper, "This is the idea of paper on privacy.  This is the
>     idea
>     of paper on security and what we want to do is in conflict with
>     this or
>     in agreement with this."  And that could guide them and may not
>     comfort
>     them, but it could be a very good reference paper that could give an
>     idea of what is happening in the real world. 
>      
>     Right now the decisions are taken by government, by businesses in
>     complete isolation of what is happening at the IGF and does not
>     reflect
>     the mood of the IGF.
>      
>     So this is something that can be proactively done by the IGF
>     Secretariat to prepare summaries, prepare position papers and
>     report on
>     the mood of IGF.  Thank you.
>
>  
>  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>  
> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>  
>
>     Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start
>     with all questions at the same time.
>     Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text could be used for
>     question 6?
>     jeanette
>      
>     William Drake wrote:
>      
>
>         Hi Ginger
>          
>         On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>          
>
>             Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's
>             and Garth Graham's previous suggestions:
>              
>
>         My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed
>         significant concerns about that text and you then withdrew it,
>         so it's not obvious why we'd put it back on the table as a
>         starting point.  In any event it was not formulated as
>         responses to the secretariat's specific questions, so one
>         could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses
>         by other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and
>         development of the synthesis paper.  Why not just do it the
>         way they're asking us to?
>          
>         Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an
>         ugly but workable option would be to start a separate thread
>         for each of the questions below, let any caucus members who
>         are so inclined respond to taste, then aggregate the responses
>         by Sunday and then we can try to boil them down into a few
>         coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday?
>          
>         There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this
>         might stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt
>         anyone's got the time to draft a complete text covering all
>         points, but people might pick and choose the bits of
>         particular interest to them.  And the result would be more
>         reflective of the various views here and more responsive to
>         the points the secretariat needs to address.
>          
>         Just a thought,
>          
>         Bill
>          
>         PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no
>         longer forwarded.
>          
>
>             1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set
>             out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
>             2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>             3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or
>             indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder
>             group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst
>             for change?
>             4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks
>             set out for it, including the functioning of the
>             Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and
>             open consultations?
>             5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial
>             five-year mandate, and why/why not?
>             6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what
>             improvements would you suggest in terms of its working
>             methods, functioning and processes?
>             7. Do you have any other comments?
>              
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>            governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>         To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>            governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>          
>         For all list information and functions, see:
>            http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>          
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>        governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>      
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>      
>
>  
____________________________________________________________
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