[governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to
>>>> concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the
>>>> sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an opportunity to
>>>> deepen the issues) are history.
>> This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important
>> discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people
>> participated in it.
> 
> Nothing like in the past...

I beg to differ, Carlos, I think the MAG has one its most important 
debates ever at the moment.

The debate concerns one paragraph of the first draft of the programme 
paper:

"There were calls for tangible outcomes involving the issuing of 
messages from the IGF. The Chairman’s Report of the Sharm El Sheikh 
meeting points in that direction.  It refers to a message addressing the 
needs of people with disabilities which, at the Session Chair’s request, 
was endorsed by acclamation. Similar outcomes could be envisaged also in 
future meetings. It was suggested that such messages should come out of 
each of the sessions.  For this purpose, a set of rapporteurs could be 
appointed to publish, in their own names, the key messages from 
sessions.  These could then be put on line in a page that allowed other 
participants to comment on the key messages."

The MAG discusses the concept and the term of "key messages": Is it 
feasible to summarize meetings in the form of messages (all of them, 
just main sessions or just workshops) ? Is the term "key" appropriate or 
not? Is it appropriate for the MAG to suggest a response to these 
issues? Is it appropriate not to address this issue? Etc, etc.

This debate is very important because it concerns the political 
authority and weight of multistakeholder processes both on the national 
and the transnational level: Are structures such as the IGF allowed to 
evolve and experiment (ah, that word again...) with various forms of 
consensus building or are they tolerated only within the confines of 
exchanging opinions in a non-committal manner?

The relevance of this debate trancends the draft of the programme paper. 
Pity that there might not be much time left to see this debate bear fruits!

jeanette
> 
> --c.a.
> 
____________________________________________________________
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