[governance] IGF Review Process Consensus Statement

[Ginger Paque]

I understand your concern, and it is a tricky point. Here is my 
thinking: to be truly multistakeholder, and productive, the process must 
include real input by governments as well. Otherwise we are just talking 
to each other, and will not have a solid impact on the big picture. If 
the government thought is that the other stakeholders (us) will be 
distracted and kept quiet by the IGF process, then they (governments) 
can go off and do business as usual, we are not using the IGF process to 
effect real change. Not only do governments have to listen to us, we 
have to listen to them.

Obviously, if this is not the IGC viewpoint, we should not include this. 
Please opine. Thanks! gp

McTim wrote:
> Ginger,
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>   
>> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
>> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
>> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
>> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by governments
>>     
>
> Are we, really?
>
>   
>> and the developing world in the IGF and
>> the counter-proposal to creating an exclusively intergovernmental forum
>> driven by decisions instead of discussion.
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
>> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation. To do
>> so, governments must be motivated to participate fully in the IGF process.
>> We ask whether a more substantial output in the form of a statement,
>> recommendations or guidelines would catalyze this engagement.
>>     
>
> Do we want to encourage more intergovernmentalism at this point?  Why?
> I don't know if you were at the WSIS prepcoms, but sitting around
> listening to gov'ts talking and getting one or 2 turns at the mic in
> each session isn't the way IG should be done.  If we encourage an
> output, gov'ts will revert to a format they know.  It's not a format I
> am happy with.
>
>   
>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>> remote participation.
>>     
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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