[governance] Open Consultation issues: IGF review revisited

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi all,

the MAG summary reports results, it is not an account of all the debates 
or positions presented (and rejected). If something is not mentioned in 
the summary, it doesn't mean that it wasn't discussed.
As far as the various positions and their respective strength or support 
are concerned, the transcript of the public consultation gives much 
better insights than the MAG summary.

Rights and Principles were discussed intensively in the MAG meeting. 
However, there was no consensus neither on R & R as the overall theme 
for the IGF meeting nor as a topic for the main session. Again, read the 
transcript and you get a pretty good idea who objected to a discussion 
about rights. Geneva principles were suggested as a compromise between 
those who wanted to so R&R discussed and those who adamantly refused it. 
   WSIS principles provide firm ground and nobody can argue that they 
are ill-defined (even if they clearly are) or not mentioned in the Tunis 
Agenda. That is how we ended up with a main session on WSIS principles.

Details about the main session havn't been discussed yet. Although the 
original intention regarding R & R is clearly lost, this topic is 
flexible enough to accommodate at least some of the aspects relevant to 
R & R.

This was a rather difficult MAG meeting. The trust among members that 
allowed us to find creative solutions for contested issues wasn't there 
this time. The upcoming evaluation may play a role here but it is 
certainly not the only reason.

jeanette


Ian Peter wrote:
> From the MAG summary just posted - and those present may want to contribute
> more information - the review does not seem to have been discussed, except
> that there will be an IGF session devoted to it. End of story?
>  
> Rights and Principles seems to have dropped right off the agenda as well -
> (except for WSIS principles which is something else). Perhaps again those
> present at MAG might be able to clarify whether this was even raised by
> anyone present. Clearly again it was raised and supported at OC but the MAG
> summary doesn't even mention it.
> 
> Interested in more information on this so we can determine next steps.
> 
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> On 18/05/09 11:59 PM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> I am finally off of an airplane for the moment, and hope to be coherent.
>> At the OC I read the IGC statement on Internet Rights and Principles, as
>> well as the previous statement on the IGF Review process.  Once the
>> official summary is out, we can discuss more effectively, but I thank
>> those who have already begun the Internet rights and principles discussion.
>>
>> The other strong point of interest for the IGC, in my opinion is the
>> evaluation of the IGF process. Nitin Desai stated quite clearly that
>> there is not sufficient time to do an external evaluation of the IGF
>> process, one point we made in our statement. The other point we made is
>> that stakeholders not represented in the IGF itself must be consulted:
>>
>> "The process of consultations should especially keep in mind
>> constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present,
>> such as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil
>> society. Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues
>> like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be
>> specifically approached."
>>
>> Desai responded by commenting that we cannot ask for evaluation from
>> people who are not familiar with the process.
>>
>> At the moment, I did not have an answer to that: those of us who are
>> involved have opportunities for input through statements, the
>> questionnaire, the IGF forum, emails to the secretariat, even YouTube
>> and Facebook. Those who follow the IGF enough to have an informed voice
>> can use these tools as well, even if they were not present at the IGF.
>>
>> So how would we in fact, assess the efficacy and impact of the IGF
>> process on non-represented stakeholders? If we think these voices should
>> be gathered, how could that be done? If we can come up with a way to do
>> it, we should suggest it. For the moment, I am stymied. It seems to me
>> that each of us must make sure we are representing our stakeholder
>> groups. If we are serious about this request in the evaluation, I think
>> we must come up with a possible mechanism.
>>
>> Any thoughts? Best, Ginger
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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