AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations

[Miguel Alcaine]

Dear all,

I am also late to participate in this thread again.

 This might be one of my last active contributions to this mailing list
because in a short period of time, I will start working for an entity where
it is not possible to fit as civil society. Once the formalities are done, I
will post those details in this list. Dear colleagues: Keep the great work,
not only around the IGF and the UN, but all around the IG ecosystem.

I read all emails, highlighted some ideas and used them to prepare the
following comments as a draft summary (with some twisting sometimes but
hopefully without hurting the original idea) of this thread so far. I
expect, we will be in a position to submit something based on this to the
Secretariat as soon as possible.

 *There is no suggestions yet on remote participation or national and
regional IGFs. Are they in another email thread?*

***Here is the start of the draft summary***

1) IGF mandate is defined in the Tunis Agenda, as well as the recent UN
General Assembly's directions to improve the IGF towards some specific
purposes.

*2) IGF*

2.1) People support having 2 days of workshops (workshop phase) and
consecutively 2 days of main sessions at IGF meetings. There is awareness of
the risks of high ranking participants chossing only to be in the main
session days. For that risk, there was a suggestion to schedule something to
attrack this people to assist from the beginning but not in parallel with
workshops. To my knowledge there were no specifics on this suggestion.
2.2) The need for a positive output from IGF is widely shared. The word
"messages" is the best among other possible choices. They should be non
negotiated text from a recognized (and respected) source as the chair, a
rapporteur the secretariat or something else. (This idea is taken to another
level in the MAG section)
2.3) To be innovative and creative, 7 new roles for IGF were propossed: i)
observatory, ii) clearinghouse, iii) laboratory, iv) school, v) scout, vi)
early warning system and vii) wachtdog. Of those iii and iv received support
while on the others there is a need for further discussion to clarified
them.


*3) Workshops.* There are two kinds of workshops. The first type should work
in harmony with the respective main session.

3.1) The bar should be higher to accept propossals.
3.2) The quality and the assurance of quality need to be improved.
3.3) Should have A declared purpose or goal as part of the evaluation
process was suggested.
3.4) Could also identify messages that should be passed to the respective
main sessions.
3.5) Organizers should be efficient and held accountable.
3.6) There was even a suggestion to work backwards between the respective
main session and the workshops. This is to identify the different parts a
topic may have and guide the workshops in this sense (This is exactly how
the subrgroup mailing list  made for the IG4D session for the last IGF and
my best guess is that the same approach was followed by the subgroup on
cloud computing).
3,7) The merge of different workshops, apparently similar, has not worked
out well in general (it does not work electronically and in a "short" period
of time).
3.8) Workshops atracting the same audience should not happen at the same
time.
3.9) Need to keep a truly multi stakeholder nature for the workshops.
3.10) As a result of the preceding suggestions, there might be an increase
in negative responses to propossals.


* 4) MAG*

4.1) It was suggested that links should be established between the MAG and
other bodies wit actual decision making power, including to feed into the EC
mechanism, if it exists in the future.
4.2) As usually there is no time to transform rough material into material
that is fit for policy making during wrap up at workshops or main sessions
and therefore there is a need for more time and more careful discussion to
transform these summaries into something that can serve as input for policy,
MAG sould be charged with proposing action lines regarding policies and
regulation, based on the input received from the IGF.
4.3) Should also be responsible to foster coordination with other
organizations on the IG ecosystem.
4.4) Should  communicate the aforementioned action lines regarding policies
and regulation to the spaces/ forums/ bodies etc that should and would make
actual policies, and
4.5) MAG should keep up an ongoing process of reviewing what has been
happening to the outcomes of the IGF, and how well or not they have been
followed up".


* 5) Intergovernmental Machinery*

5.1) Amend ECOSOC res 2007/8 to require the IGF Secretariat to submit
directly its respective report to the CSTD Secretariat, as it is the case
already explicitly for GAID. This will be in addition of what DESA includes
in its respective report, as GAID and IGF are part of DESA.
5.2) As CSTD is in charge of assisting ECOSOC with the system-wide follow-up
of WSIS, including the IGF, the CSTD and its Secretariat should adopt -
mutis mutandis - some of the effective practices of the IGF and its
Secretariat, like keeping its multistakeholderism, remote participation and
real time transcripts.


*** end of the draft summary ***

 Best,

Miguel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110204/21a2ec63/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, 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