[governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Parminder,

this is correct and I guess I should have mentioned the example of 
EuroDIG as well. My focus was on potential unwanted side-effects and I 
thought we should keep this in mind and not get too much carried away in 
our enthusiasm for outputs.
While outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of 
events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might 
alter the dynamics of the discussions. I just mean to say that the 
skeptics may have a point.
jeanette

Parminder wrote:

> 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