[governance] Provisional suggestion – on the structure of IGF (meeting)

[Lee W McKnight]

Hi,

I want to second Lisa's comment that the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition is - we hope - accomplishing some things of significance.  

How significant of course remains to be seen, but the draft Charter and its iterative refinement has been something that needed a mechanism like the Dynamic Coalition to bring the loose group together to push the thing along.

And the Charter that results could be of some significance, well beyond IGF. We all hope.

So it's too simplistic/inaccurate to say Dynamic Coalitions have failed; better to phrase it as MOST Dc's etc...; and we dn't want to go to other extreme and ban or discourage dc's from forming/doing things, when they can.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Horner [LisaH at global-partners.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:59 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; Roland Perry
Subject: RE: [governance] Provisional suggestion – on the structure of IGF (meeting)

Hey

Just a quick response...

The IRP coalition is still alive and fairly well, but is more of an informal collaborative network that works outside of the IGF, rather than something that is part of the formal IGF process.  I think a lack of formal role and links into the organization and running of the IGF is a major reason for this.  Also, and partly because of this, they aren't really seen as useful structures by the private and government sectors, and so mainly become civil society hubs.  They lack formal structures and funding, meaning that everything is done on an ad hoc basis in people's spare time. It takes a lot of energy and resources to make a network or working group work, especially when there's a lack of formal structures for influencing discussions or outcomes (e.g. at the IGF).

I think some kind of continuum process/subcommittees would be a good idea.  But I can't see one being formed around "human rights and internet governance" (thinking of the IRP).  So it'd actually involve a lot more leg work on behalf of rights advocates to make sure that human rights are considered in all subcommittee processes, rather than simply participating in one mailing list/DC meeting.  Which is something we've all been trying to do (e.g. not just go to rights-focused workshops, but  try and raise rights issues in all sessions), but haven't managed to as strategically or in as joined up a way as we perhaps need to.

All the best,
Lisa


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: 23 February 2011 12:06
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
Subject: Re: [governance] Provisional suggestion – on the structure of IGF (meeting)

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:33 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message
> <AANLkTikVZdRVZAWBOj=BH-c44an9vMCzRnhTRxcRwy3Z at mail.gmail.com>, at
> 19:17:31 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes
> >Some of CS members feel that IGF should not be an annual event ending
> >at the last day of its meeting – but rather a continuum process – and
> >we like to see some innovation in this regard.
>
> Wasn't that the role of Dynamic Coalitions? Do you think that concept
> failed, and if so why? What would be different, if a new type of ongoing
> process was introduced?

It failed because the Dynamic Coalitions were left too loose to be
effective, because [elements of] the MAG feared institutionalising them
too strongly or (shock!) creating working groups.  They therefore
because a mish-mash of advocacy cells, contact groups for people who
organised or attended a workshop, or vanity groups.  None of them (save
maybe one) were really the focussed multi-stakeholder working groups of
the IGF that it needs.  In one of my personal submissions, I wrote:

"Under whatever name, the IGF requires formal subcommittees in which
intensive democratic deliberation can take place, both in person and
online, and which have a clearly defined process by which their outputs
are presented to the IGF's plenary body for approval by consensus as
assessed by its bureau."

Also see my blog post "The Underpants Gnomes of the IGF" at
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/the-underpants-gnomes-of-the-igf.
It's worth reading just for the title alone.  If the server is down
(that happens, sorry), it's also in Google Cache.

--
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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