[governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion

[michael gurstein]

Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and
there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding
may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give
precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and
what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something
(such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its
success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this
the principle that we want to accept?

We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation
as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision
making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the
legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple
layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed
"first class" participation (access to more effective influence on
outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second
class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision
making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f
interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the
practice we want to accept?

Mike


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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