[governance] Montreux

Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Sat Mar 5 08:38:46 EST 2011


Thanks Anriette and everyone for giving some rather higher level
discussion/analysis... 

That has proven very useful in trying to assess what has gone on and where
things might go from here, although for me at least. the process of
attempting to work through either media or folks attempting to transmit the
information is always a difficult one.  (BTW, I draw the conclusion from
this that some sort of "representational" process is necessary i.e. one
needs to select representatives who are in accord with one's overall
position and then trust them to act in a responsible fashion consistent with
their previously articulated position statements.

Which brings me to respond to Anriette's "proposal" below.

I understand why she has indicated a preference for "functional/operational"
groupings and representation since these would to a degree have
"functional/operational" positions to articulate and "interests" to see
manifest in IGF discussions/outcomes (?).  I'm wondering though whether the,
should we say, UN-centric groupings that she has articulated are the most
appropriate delineation of the IG universe.  

I'm wondering for example where the Open Source/Open Data/Open Government
folks would fit into this framework; or equally where P2P folks; or the ICT
and democracy constituencies; or the Human Rights and the Internet
groupings: or dare I say the community informatics communities would fit
in...

The difference that I see between the groups I'm pointing to and Anriette's
are that the former are looking to link ICT/Internet/IG issues back into
existing frameworks of action/analysis while the latter are looking to
expand the boundaries of existing activity using the Internet (and
potentially IG (?)) as tools...

I have quite serious reservations about any framework for inclusion within
the IG/IGF which does not provide means for active (even including
solicitation of) participation by the latter groups.

Best to all,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:06 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Montreux


Hello all... my last message on Montreux for a while.. I need to get back to
the huge pile of work waiting.

One point that I think was not stressed or explored enough during the
discussion:

- the IGF secretariat should be independent

What this means, why it is important, and why it should be ensured, did not
come up at all I think.

This should be stressed in all further submissions, and I think we can
benefit from coming up with concrete ideas on this in the IGF space.

I had proposed that civil society representation in the MAG be doubled.
Other CS reps supported this. A bit more on this:

- my specific proposal was that the current number of civil society people
in the MAG be doubled with:

* half the number being drawn from civil society organisations that work
specifically on internet policy issues,

* and the other half drawn from civil society organisations working on
substantial issue areas such as sustainable development, cultural and
linguistic diversity, peacebuilding, etc. and who represent the interests of
specific groups such as women's rights groups, people with disability,
online workers, etc.

I would like to know how members of the IGF feel about this proposal.

My argument is that:

- CS represents more diversity... etc.  this has been elaborated on already
by Wolfgang and others

- Business and the tech community largely, not exclusively, but definitely
largely, has common positions in the IGF context. This creates imbalance in
the MAG, with business and the tech community being more influential than
other groups. While there are loads of things that CS would have in common
with these two groups, there are also differences, and it makes it difficult
for us as CS to broaden the scope of the IGF.

Wolfgang made a very important point in one of his inputs yesterday:

- The tech community constituency in the IGF is supported to be the
technical AND academic community.. but it has been made up mainly of
technical community people, with academics dealing with non-tech aspects of
IG being included in the CS slate

This reduces the number of CS organisational representatives even further,
and does not do the academic community justice. They have a lot to
contribute.

Anriette








------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________
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



More information about the Governance mailing list