AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations

[Lee W McKnight]

Hi,

Belatedly responding to this thread re what is and what is not possible within IGF context:

- At IGF workshop level there is nothing preventing participants from seeking to get to point of rough consensus, and sending a message of that consensus - wherever
- In fact, we have already been there and done that*
- Therefore, it can be done again at next IGF
- It would be nice if every workshop CSers agree to participate in - has an objective accomplishing something. Wouldn't it?

* As some may recall at IGF in Hyderabad, I chaired workshop on the JPA. After a lively 'full and frank' discussion, I asked for a show of hands - an informal, obviously non-binding 'vote' of workshop participants - on whether the JPA should end.  The majority supported the end of the JPA.   (which is of course what happened about a half year later) I did this all in a very light-hearted way, but also with a serious, ok intentionally provocative purpose: to send a message not just to USG but also to IGF participants - that workshops can indeed send a message, and that - gasp - if a workshop chair asks for a show of hands, people are free to raise their hands, or not.

I have not repeated my 'stunt' at subsequent IGF's; as I have for various reasons been unable to attend. 

But I think some folks got my - message; and yeah I know I was criticized by some for my actions. I kind of expected that, so no problem. 

I believe other IGF workshop chairs have similarly asked for workshop participants to indicate their views, on perhaps not quite as politically charged topics as JPA vs end of JPA was at the time, but still.

Anyway, just as some folks said we could not discuss 'Critical Internet Resources' at IGF in early days - like we were only supposed to talk about things that were not of critical importance? - some, ok many people, may still think that it is not possible or practical for IGF to send messages - as if participants in a Forum can never draw conclusions. 

As I said, we have been there, done that, and folks can - oops - do it again. 

Ideally it would become a more accepted and established aspect of IGF workshops, though of course if we are part of an open discussion debate, we can't know in advance what the - rough consensus - might be, or whether there will be any at all. So what; as Nike advises, just do it.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:33 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org;  Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Yrjö Länsipuro
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations

"If you start negotiations, you close mind and mouth of decision makers and participants will only try to get "their position" reflected in the final document."

That very much depends on where (which political space) this discussion would take place. I believe the role of the MAG needs to be changed and strengthened on this process. The MAG could be able to analyze the summaries that will come from the IGF and, whenever possible, take messages (policy recommendations) from it.
The negotiations would not be so hardcore, as we are only talking about Messages to other decision-making bodies, but these messages would have the legitimacy of coming from a multistakeholder elected group.

Of course, that would entail that IGF sessions are much better documented, with two or three most important messages from workshops (even if they show dissensus) being identified by a rapporteur (as proposed by wolf gang) and maybe presented in the main session.

It is really not impossible to preserve the spirit of open dialogue of the IGF, and produce more meaningful outcomes. We just have to open our minds for it and be courageous to try something new. Now is the time!

Best,
Marilia


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 29, 2011, at 4:03 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> wrote:

If you start negotiations, you close mind and mouth of decision makers and participants will only try to get "their position" reflected in the final document.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t