[governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re

[George Sadowsky]

All,

I thank Wolfgang for contributing the wisdom in his message below to the list.

In particular, the notion of a long run strategy, 
with long run defined goals and objectives for 
civil society, is very appealing.  It would 
provide a compact and  clearly articulated vision 
of what the desired goals are as well as a guide 
for short run activities that would encourage the 
attainment of those goals.

I like Wolfgang's emphasis on viewing civil 
society activities in a broader scope, including 
not only IGF but also ITU, GAID and the United 
Nations.  There are a number of players in this 
space; some will continue play in it 
indefinitely, some will fade out of existence, 
and others are likely to be born.  Having a 
vision that concentrates upon principles is 
likely to me more useful in a shifting landscape 
of different organizations with changing and 
different objectives.

Having long run articulated goals that are not so 
utopian as to be unachievable appeals very much 
to me.  As Wolfgang notes, there will be a 
post-MAG/IGF period, we are already entering a 
post-JPA/ICANN period, and it's likely that there 
will be a post-GAID period also.  What in the 
long run are the characteristics of the Internet 
governance regime  --  as well as the state of 
ICT4D delivery (which may be as or more 
important)  --  that civil society could 
practically achieve in those future periods?

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 1:13 PM +0100 1/16/10, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>
>Hi all
>
>McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus".
>
>I did not jump into the discussion because I am 
>very busy these days with some other activities, 
>however I follow the debate and would warn to 
>move forward too fast.
>
>There is a need for a more fundamental 
>clarification of the whole issue and a more 
>strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role 
>of civil society in Internet Governance policy 
>development in the coming years. This is part of 
>a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post 
>JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of 
>the IGC in all these processes (including the 
>forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 
>and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in 
>October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in 
>other process where Internet Governance becomes 
>an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the 
>IGC positioned itself to new processes in the UN 
>General Assembly (with regard to Internet 
>security and governance, pushed by the 
>government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And 
>what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China?
>
>Before we make hasty statements on the future of 
>the IGF, probably we should start to discuss a 
>more strategic vision paper on "Civil Society 
>and Internet Governance 2015". If we have 
>something like this until the IGF in Vilnjus 
>this would be great. We could have an extra one 
>day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also 
>other stakeholders and we could organize one or 
>two workshops around this strategic 
>re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme.
>
>Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair you 
>want to "deliver" something, but sometimes it is 
>better for a chair just to enable the members of 
>the group to exchange their views, to stimulare 
>their thinking and to moderate a bottom up 
>opinion building process. Strong leadership 
>includes also the capacity to listen, to ask 
>questions (not to give quick answers) and to 
>steer the process from behind, where needed.
>
>Best regards
>
>Wolfgang
>
____________________________________________________________
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