[governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 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.

Hi Carl,

thanks, this is encouraging.
Here some more impressions of the debate around key messages. In the 
beginning I thought this was merely a symbolic controversy since 
"messages" as such won't change the rules and resources that constitute 
Internet governance in its present form. "Key messages" might be one of 
these "discursive objects" that allow people to gather behind a 
position, differentiate themselves from people with different positions, 
and feel good about siding with the right people.

But there is more to it this debate. It also concerns the questions of 
how and in which form we create "output" from IGF meetings. Would it be 
in the form of condensed summaries which reflect various positions? Or 
would such messages rather focus on the common ground between those in 
the room?

Another important point concerns unwanted side-effects. Some of those 
who are sceptical about this idea argue that messages may change the 
whole character of IGF meetings because open debates could be 
transformed into negotiation exercises. The example of the UK IGF was 
brought up. It seems the participants of the UK meeting spent a lot if 
not most of the time arguing about the correct message.

While I am in favor of using messages of whatever sort as a step towards 
more tangible outcomes, I see the risk of such unwanted side-effects.

jeanette

The debate
> 
> 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