[governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> 
> 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.


Strongly agree with Bill here. Are we suggesting that this is a failing of the IGF as an institution, which bears somehow on the issue of its renewal? Or are we simply pointing out that it would be nice to have more people included -- in which case the implication is that IGF should continue so that could happen.

____________________________________________________________
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