AW: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Thanks Jeremy
 
Here are two comments:
 
JM:
It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh.  In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010.  The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation.  However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone.
 
W:
As Jeanette I do not see that a formal MAG meeting in September 2009 would have changed the proposed agenda substantially. I would also not support to critisize that there is only one offical MAG meeting planned for 2010. I would here add a paragraph that the IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" (SMO) mechanism for the preparation of IGFs. As I said in a previous mail, we should be here as creative as possible, we should avoid to open a "battle" about seats in a MAG and we should think ouf of the box how future IGFs can be prepared and organized in a more open and transparent way, embedded into a well structured bottom up approach, which should include all stakeholders in their respective roles on equal footing. Such a bottom up approach can go through various layers (inlcuding a MAG like layer) but the vertical communication between the layers is as important as the horizonal communcation on the various layers (as within a MAG) and has to be open and transparent. Here we should make proposals which are forward looking. We do not yet have such proposals, but we should signal in Geneva in February, that we are forward looking and we are working on this. 
 
JM:
The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms.
 
W:
It was the IGC which introduced the concept of "Messages" as an recognized output from an IGF (instead of negotiated recommendations). It was the proposal that the convener of each workshop would have the duty to send one or two messages to the secretariat so that a final document would emerge from the bottom. It was also said that if there is no clear single conclusion from a workshop the "messages" can be "one group says so, another group says so" so that the broader public gets an idea what the key issues in a certain area are. The IGF messages should be send to the various instiutions which have a decision making capacity: from UNESCO and ITU to ICANN and IETF. It would be something oike a "source of inspiration" for decision makers. The EURODIG has started to use this concept. We had "EURODG Messages from Strasbourg" in 2008 and "EURODIG Messages from Geneva" in 2009. In a recent preparatory meeting for EURODIG III (planned for Madrid in April 2010) we discussed already a framework for "EURODIG Messages from Madrid". With other words, also here the IGC should be the driver for innovation and be more creative. 
 
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