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

Mon Jul 16 15:58:25 EDT 2012

I agree with Bill's critique of Jeremy and Norbert's approach (re-invent the IGF and hope everyone shows up for it).
It seems to me we have to get the IGF to work. The IGF itself, not a clone or a re-run. If we can't get the governments that were critical of the IG status quo, and the private sector players who were scared of any deviation from the IG status quo, to work with us properly in the context of the existing IGF, repeating the experiment in a new, even more marginalized venue, is unlikely to work.

But I also have to agree with Lee: the centerpiece of the campaign has to be something more inspiring and motivating than whether we call something a "working group." I would suggest that we find an issue that people really want to do something about, such as evaluating ICANN, ITU, etc. as Bill suggested, and try to gain commitments from a critical mass of stakeholders to support some long-term initiative around that.

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 11:31 PM
To: William Drake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: Malcom, Jeremy
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups

I was referring to my Geneva(n) New York neighbors ; ) - ok whatever, pardon mois.

But  I still can't picture how your social media mobilization campaign for IGF 'working groups' is going to gain adherents.

Unless you just  help Norbert flesh out his ECTF proposal, which comes with the ability to launch working groups built in; reporting to/from IGF.
________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:48 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Lee W McKnight
Cc: Malcom, Jeremy
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups
Hi Lee

On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

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

Please, Genevois...it's not Wisconsin.

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,

Not the UN.  Everyone other than the G77 and the IGC (for entirely different reasons).

either no longer matters;

Still does, it'd be a very hard sell, as the WGIGF demonstrated.  But when the WSIS looked to be a train wreck, the actors that initially opposed it accepted that there was nowhere to go besides launching an IGF.  If they start to recognize the prospects of a steady stream of varyingly sized train wrecks, maybe they'll also start to consider taking the IGF seriously to be the least bad alternative.  But the case would have to be made effectively, which would require redirecting and focusing energies.

or can be overcome in the not lightyears distant future,  through what is I am sure a very inspiring strategem you've pre-cooked.

Oh yes, grand plan, fully elaborated, right here in my pocket ;-)

More like muddling through, groping in the dark, wishing on a star...pick your metaphor.

Cheers,

Bill

________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:15 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120716/25dddacc/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