[governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus

[William Drake]

Hi Ginger

On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Bill (Drake) could you please clarify your position for me? I re- 
> read your email and the statement, and I still see the proposed new  
> statement as supportive of the IGF, and as dealing with a very  
> important point about the future possibilities of the IGF. Sorry to  
> be dense. What am I missing?

I don't know.  But given the IGC's historical and current relationship  
to the IGF, one would like to think that an IGC statement about  
renewal could do more to reflect on the experience and make a case for  
why it's been innovative and important and merits support.  Merely  
stating at the end that

>>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with  
>>> near-unanimous response that it should continue

Is pretty underwhelming, especially when there are a number of  
important actors saying its value and effectiveness are not at all  
obvious.  I suspect it'll be renewed but could get bloodied a bit  
along the way, e.g. in ECOSOC, in ways that could affect the  
trajectory, so it'd be nice to be providing solid argumentation in  
support.

Instead, the text uses 3 of its 5 sentences to voice a rather generic  
criticism, that there are unnamed marginalized groups that for unnamed  
reasons don't participate in IGF.   Which must be someone's fault--- 
the secretariat, us, earth---and which China, Toure, et al can point  
to when attacking (e.g. "even civil society says it's failed").  You  
can criticize essentially every policy process, national/regional/ 
global, on this basis, It's a rather easy charge that can always be  
trotted out, and indeed, Michael's pushed it in WSIS, GAID, OECD, etc.  
as well.  Everyone would like more inclusion, especially of  
marginalized groups, but unless we're going to suggest something  
concrete and doable to address the problem and are clear we're not  
blaming the tiny unfunded secretariat, it feels like a bit of a cheap  
shot as a main thrust.

It'd read differently in a broader and balanced statement about IGF's  
contributions to global understanding, dialogue etc on IG.  In this  
context, concluding with some points about things that the  
international community needs to address going forward would seem  
apt.  We could say something constructive about much more needing to  
be done to promote inclusion, we could raise the long standing  
concerns of some/many/all (unclear) of us that IGF should be more than  
an annual conference and have more capacity to actually deliver on the  
mandate, etc.  As with the JPA discussion, some structured debate and  
consensus building here on a more substantial text would seem doable,  
we have until July 15 to submit.  Why we should rush to agree on a  
short and inadequately worded statement that concentrates on a generic  
shortcoming of all policy processes is beyond me.

Hope that is clearer,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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