[governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire

[William Drake]

Hi Izumi

Since I'm not in a position to do word smithing on this in the next few days the following comments may not seem very helpful.  Nevertheless, I'll share them in case someone does have the bandwidth to try taking on board inputs and working out consensus formulations...

On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Dear list,
> 
> Here follows and attached are the 2nd version of our draft answer to CSTD IGF questionnaire.

No attachment

> Since the discussion only touched on Q1 and Q3, I put changes on these two points below. Added sentences and words are highlighted by yellow.
> A full version with hitory-on version in Word format is attached.
> 
> As the deadline is approaching, I will ask Jeremy to put it into the poll shortly, but hope we can catch any immediate and strong comments and requests before doing so.
> 
> 
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five IGF meetings? 
> 
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive manner. This emergence 
> and development of the principle and practice of the multistakeholder model is perhaps the biggest 
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to understand the issues of their 
> interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act and accept their issues. 
> Emergence of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another achievements. 

Needs rewriting for English
> 
> Yet We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process we still have has we still have not directly 
> produced seen real tangible outcomes directly out of IGF process. 

Disagree
> 
> 
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of the IGF discussions, 
> in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the 
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.) and the 
> stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.). 
> 
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of recommendations where 
> all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They It will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.

This seems to go backwards to 2005.  There has since been much discussion on the list and elsewhere about the difficulties of trying to do that in the IGF setting and better, more viable alternatives proposed, e.g. messages from not of IGF etc.
> 
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and 
> debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the Note by the Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the formal consultations held online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt in 2009 (http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)).
> 
> IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It should avoid providing 
> standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to implement certain technologies 
> or how these technologies work.

While I understand Milton's thinking, I disagree 

So far I couldn't vote for this statement but would like to see the rest…

BTW under 9 why not mention the previously discussed issue of preserving an independent secretariat in Geneva?

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/02ac4ea3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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