[governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme

[Fouad Bajwa]

Dear Colleagues,

We can definitely see that substantial input is now being made on the
MAG list from pro-key message process supporters and if we can keep
this support going, I see the possibility to atleast explore this
process in light of the EuroDIG achievement? The same participants of
EuroDIG are also actively participating in the IGF and that is a very
important message itself for supporting this.

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa


On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> On the other hand, there is the very successful example of EuroDIG, whose
> 'messages from Geneva' ( see
> http://www.guarder.net/kleinwaechter/images/eurodig/2009/messages_from_geneva.pdf
> ) is a document worth reading. Especially see page 12 onwards where messages
> from plenary sessions are described.
>
> One of the persons associated with organizing EuroDIG clearly noted that the
> fact that 'messages' were being distilled from the discussions had no effect
> whatsoever on how the debates went, meaning they did not get hijacked by a
> 'messages agenda'.
>
> EuroDIG also seems to have a followed a very sound process in developing
> these messages.
>
> I agree with Jeanette that this debate is about the 'political authority and
> weight of a multistakeholder process', and thus of great importance.
>
> Parminder
>>
>> 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
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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