[governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements

[Izumi AIZU]

I will try to come up with new version around "tangible result",
"recommendations"
and other points under discussion here, but before doing so, aren't
there any other comments on other points I wrote? They are:

Q4. Important New issues
Q5. Priority themes and areas of work
Q6. How to increase capacity of representatives from developing countries?
Q7. Awareness raising among those who are not yet part of IGF process
Q8. How to change IGF process to meet changing circumstances
Q9. ANY OTHER.

Thanks,

izumi

2010/11/14 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> Dierdre,
>
> Let’s play devil’s advocate: Why are regional and national IGFs a “huge
> outcome?”
>
> If a global IGF doesn’t accomplish anything, multiplication of the model at
> lower levels doesn’t accomplish anything, either, right?
>
> In particular, what do national IGF’s accomplish that are not possible
> within the framework of existing national institutions?
>
>
>
> From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:22 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
> Cc: McTim; Izumi AIZU; cstd at igf-online.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on
> improvements
>
>
>
> I have a problem anyway about "tangible outcomes" - I can feel Rui breathing
> down my neck :-)
>
> I feel that the proliferation of national and regional IGFs is a HUGE
> outcome which can certainly be demonstrated and documented if not actually
> touched.
>
> Also, as Ginger suggests, remote participation and the access it affords to
> the previously excluded.
>
> Galvanising a huge chunk of the whole world into some type of action -
> holding national and regional meetings - in just 5 years, is something like
> finding Archimedes lever, and I think we should look at it like that.
>
>
>
> Under #2 I wonder whether it would be possible to produce brief summary
> reports, in layman's language, WITHOUT ANY ACRONYMS, for dissemination to
> those who are currently "outsiders".
>
> Also I wish we could think of a "sexy" approach to involve the print and
> broadcast media in spreading the word. A comic strip? A soap opera?
>
>
>
> #3 I am from a developing country. Recently an NGO here had a problem for
> which it hired consultants. It then transpired that the same problem had
> been addressed by consultants 10 years ago, and the report, the
> recommendations, had sat on the shelf, unused, essentially "lost", for 10
> years. Recommendations may be tangible but they are frequently seen as an
> end in themselves rather than being a plan for a "way forward". I am rather
> "anti" about recommendations, unless they are accompanied by some type of
> actual "implementation".
>
>
>
> #4 para 2 there is an important "not" missing I think -  "have NOT yet
> gained sufficient level of work at IGF"
>
>
>
> I like #6b and I LOVE #6e :-)
>
>
>
> Thank you for making the draft
>
>
>
> Deirdre
>
> On 13 November 2010 08:33, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with McTim strongly on this...
> There is no reason to emphasize a 'negative' position on achieving the
> assigned outcome.
>
> In fact, I think it makes more sense to note that there have been many have
> been tangible and intangible positive outcomes directly/indirectly from the
> IGF process, beyond awareness-raising and bringing IG issues to regional IGF
> meetings--what about the emergence and development of the multistakeholder
> model? How about the advances in remote participation, permitting greater
> inclusion in global policy processes? What about the diffusion and
> replication of best practices?
>
> The question doesn't ask about our frustration, it asks what we consider the
> most important achievement. If we must point out the frustration, should it
> not at least be balanced by appreciation for \ the positive effects? At
> least we should answer the question!
>
> Thanks for doing this work. Much appreciated. I am in the middle of a
> workshop in Tobago, and have not reviewed carefully. I think others should
> voice their positions as well.
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> The latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
> blogs and post your comments.
>
> On 11/12/2010 10:58 PM, McTim wrote:
>
> Pretty good reply overall.
>
>
>
> I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
>
> directly out of IGF process."
>
>
>
> As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
____________________________________________________________
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