[governance] current politics around the IGF

[Fouad Bajwa]

Dear Parminder,

I have been reading the earlier posts on NN and Open Internet and then
of course the discussions surrounding IGF politics, I wanted to learn
from you more critically that do regions across the world really
depend on IGF to be improved especially when they may be getting more
out of the regional and country IGFs' taking place and by stakeholders
on their own. What is the polity of the regional IGFs and their
institutionalization?

Let's say for example EURODIG which is of course the EU and CoE
countries getting together and delivering messages that they can
utilize in various means suitable to them and every year this forum is
maturing and becoming results oriented, political and suitable to the
regions need. One of the results I have noted is that the EU
stakeholders come very strong to the IGF with their opinions and
messages cultivated and thought out and you see a level of cooperation
amongst the various stakeholders of that region.

I see the above case where IGF is still missing the point and where
certain stakeholders not in the right of messages or an outcome are
already falling pray to the EURODIG process. Its like the blind men
and a white elephant examples.

In terms of IGF and its programming, earlier last year I witnessed on
the floor CS stakeholders opposing the idea of IG4D and also on
certain areas we had prior agreed to. I see politics within us as
well. I have also seen certain CS stakeholders maintaining diplomacy
within the organizations they work with not to touch controversy
within the IGF but would do so in the IGC. These are various
interesting forces at interplay inside and all around us. Would these
also matter to the IGF politics debate?

I am really looking forward to your comments on this because these
points are really shaping up the current polity?

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:59 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I agree a bit of discussion here about the current politics around the IGF,
> in light of our priorities, would be useful.
>
> There are two directions (which could at times look as opposing) in which
> things are being pulled, or can move.
>
> One, retaining the core features of the IGF as we know it.
>
> Two, seeking (small to substantive) improvements in the IGF.
>
> I do think that the danger of, and problems with, landing up with no
> improvements in the IGF at all, is as much as that of not retaining the
> 'currently core features' of the IGF.
>
> I myself do not think there is much danger of loosing these 'core features',
> but since others seems to, it will be good for them to both list these 'core
> features' and tell us why, and how, there is a danger of losing them.
>
> In the same way we can discuss what kind of 'improvements' may be being
> proposed, and which kinds may be good and which not. Which kind of
> 'improvements' may result in the IGF losing its core features in a way we
> dont want it to.
>
>>It'd be better to give certain governments and especially UN NY reasons to
>> think carefully about the desirability and >sustainability of the
>> "improvements" they're considering. (Bill)
>
> Bill, can you roughly list what you think the proposed "improvements" whose
> sustainability and desirability needs to be thought carefully about.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 24 August 2010 12:27 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi
> On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle
> <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is
> the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues
> that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the
> CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a
> name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft
> entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in
> the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of
> democracy.
>
> I agree up until now, but...
>
> This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as has
> successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people
> to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints.
>
> This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you
> describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing
> civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and
> have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated.
>
> What I said was "we should be somewhat strategic about how we use these
> opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message."  I didn't
> mean this to imply group cooperation on writing text; speakers should of
> course be trusted and free to say what they want.  I just meant a bit of
> coordination might be helpful to them, e.g. the caucus could discuss a
> little what sort of message people think would be useful, and the speakers
> could consider taking on board anything they think particularly important or
> reflective of consensus.  The important point is to be cognizant of what's
> going on with the politics around renewal and use the opportunity to
> intervene effectively in the debate; to me at least, a general run-down of
> known CS positions on various IG issues wouldn't be sufficient, it's not
> 2007 or whatever.  It'd be better to give certain governments and especially
> UN NY reasons to think carefully about the desirability and sustainability
> of the "improvements" they're considering.
> Best,
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t