[governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups

[Lee W McKnight]

Ok fine, if 'working groups' inspire Genevans, let's go for it.

All I am still missing is the part where you explain why the UN freaking out over the phrase 'working groups' the last time their prospect was raised, either no longer matters; or can be overcome in the not lightyears distant future,  through what is I am sure a very inspiring strategem you've pre-cooked.

Lee
________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:15 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; Malcom, Jeremy
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups

Hi

On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

My 2 cents:

Since as far as I know noone can (now) stop us from proclaiming intent to launch a Dynamic Coalition on Open Internet Transparency or whatever name folks prefer, why not just do that and work to invite the government transparency folks, from government(s).

Sure, if all we want is another space for kibitzing among ourselves, let's do that.


The IG specialists might then come along.

Instead, fighting a war to get to call something a 'working group'...well that's not the most inspiring battle cry.

I readily admit that what counts as inspiring in Syracuse may be different from what counts in Geneva :-)  There's a lot of history here that may not be apparent.  There were reasons why the caucus supported WGs (but WGIGish peer-level multistakeholder able to reflect different views as 'outcomes,' not of the traditional UN kind).  There were reasons why DCs were offered as an alternative.  There were reasons why the governments we need dialogue with generally didn't engage in DCs, thereby limiting the value of the exercise and helping to undermine IGF and direct their energies elsewhere.  There are reasons why the situation has changed and it's worth trying again.

On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

Norbert, how about adding the working group on promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, to the ECTF proposal?  As William notes is one of the important missing elements of the IGF"s mandate, and also one I suggested for the new body that I outlined at http://jere.my/l/2w.  I don't feel that yet another dynamic coalition would do this justice.  Whilst many people are still skeptical of the ECTF proposal, we can discuss it more at the APrIGF this week.  It may or may not have legs in the end, but an alternative approach to DCs is definitely needed.

Agree with the last phrase but not the rest.  I think we should be trying to strengthen the IGF and attract governments and stakeholders to seriously engage on the issues there, rather than proposing creation of another and competing mechanism that is even less likely to attract sufficient support and participation.

Best,

Bill





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120716/60918b0f/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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