[governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme

[Carlos A. Afonso]

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.

--c.a.

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 
> 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
> 
____________________________________________________________
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