[governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.

Sun May 22 13:49:05 EDT 2011

My apologies, lots of typos at 5:44am, this is what I meant to say:

I think that if we advocate the mutistakeholder, then we should work in
> collaboration. If we start segregating the list, the reality is in the
> developing world, there are those who will be marginalsed eg. there are people who wear many hats because there are not enough people debating the issues or addressing the problems
> in policy etc.

I think down the track that the very people you were trying to protect
will end up being marginalised. This is not a desirable outcome. If
the
 multistakeholder process is to be championed within the internet
governance debate, it becomes critical to champion/advocate the
multistakeholder process.

> Without a doubt, one of the challenges is navigating through the political dynamics and finding a forum and platform in which our issues can be raised. That is a challenge that together as an
> integrated group we can collaborate to discuss.
>
> There is an off-chance, that there may be elements (could be a person or an organisation) that do not share the multistakeholder process and it signals to me that they have not fully bought into the multistakeholder process and perhaps some kind of outreach can be organised. This is something that can be fielded to the IGC coordinators to watch for and strategically as a Caucus, create mechanisms even within this list to encourage people to work together.

If it does not work here, we cannot export the model. These are my
personal opinions and do not represent the opinion of any of my
affiliations.
>
> Sala

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that if we advocate mutistakeholder, then we should work in
> collaboration. If we start segregating the list, the reality is in the
> developing world, there are people who wear many hats because there
> are not enough people debating the issues or addressing the problems
> in policy etc. I think down the track that the very people you were
> trying to protect will end up being marginalised. If the
> multistakeholder process is to be championed within the internet
> governance debate, it becomes critical to championing the
> multistakeholder process.
>
> Without a doubt, one of the challenges is navigating through the
> political dynamics and finding a forum and platform within which our
> issues can be raised. That is a challenge that together as an
> integrated group we can collaborate to discuss.
>
> There is an off-chance, that do not share the multistakeholder process
> and it signals to me that they have not fully bought into the
> multistakeholder process and perhaps some kind of outreach can be
> organised. This is something that can be fielded to the IGC
> coordinators to watch for and strategically as a Caucus, create
> mechanisms even within this list to encourage people to work together.
>
> Sala
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yes,
>> Instead of splitting or developing differentiation between IGC CS mailing list members, to hode any information to share, we should understand the value of combine (single) mailing list.
>> We should remain open to share information.
>> If there is a problem of competitive intelligence, some of us may become members of other international institutions, but yes, CS members can't join Governmental institutions, so, let them do their work on their own way. If any of them join us for competitive intelligence, will learn good governance and examples from us (IGC CS).
>>
>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:55 PKT Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 22.05.2011 17:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Can you elaborate your arguments, please?
>>>
>>>I don't want to encourage what I argued against to begin with, another
>>>discussion about splitting the mailing list.
>>>
>>>This mailing list has proven to be flexible enough to fulfill several
>>>functions, providing an open platform to discuss IG issues across single
>>>stakeholder groups and simultaneously providing the space to develop
>>>collective statements. It is actually amazing that this mailing list
>>>with its highly diverse list of subscribers has managed to survive for
>>>so many years without losing significant shares of subscribers (which
>>>doesn't say much about its actual readers though).
>>>
>>>A splitting of the list risks destroying this space without any clear
>>>benefit. We don't have that many secrets to hide from other stakeholder
>>>groups (at least that I would know of) that seem worth taking such a
>>>chance. If there is a need for strategizing, small groups can always
>>>form offlist, and have often formed for that matter.
>>>
>>>This mailing list is now 8 or 9 years old. It survived the end of WSIS
>>>and it might even survive the demise of the IGF. Its asset is its
>>>openness and its subscriber list. It would be sad if we destroyed it in
>>>the name of narrow understanding of civil society.
>>>
>>>jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>>>>>>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who
>>>>>>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>>>>>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>>>>>>> organization.
>>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between
>>>>>> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
>>>>>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
>>>>>> institutions?
>>>>>
>>>>> They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
>>>>>> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very
>>>>>> ably that at the moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>>>>>>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>>>>>>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership
>>>>>>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since
>>>>>>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the
>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only
>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>>>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>>>>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new
>>>>>>>> list and
>>>>>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your
>>>>>>>> reactions
>>>>>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is
>>>>>>>>> open to
>>>>>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>>>>>>>> officials,
>>>>>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to
>>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share
>>>>>>>>> here, can
>>>>>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
>>>>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>>>>>>> members will
>>>>>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sala
>
> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>

-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
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