[governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme
Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Thu Mar 4 13:55:11 EST 2010
Hi Jean, this message is helping me a lot to get in synch with the
discussion, which I tried to follow in the last few weeks and could not.
I think what your wrap-up of the debate so far should as well be posted
in the igf-members list.
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 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
> "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!
> 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:
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
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:
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance