[governance] IGF Improvements report

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Hi Milton

Report could have gone further but considering consensus politics it could have been much weaker than it is. In the hands of a committed
MAG and strong exec sec it can produce good outcomes. Problem is that it is not clear who will be responsible for implementing the recommendations.

Anriette
Wide awake in winter
Sent from my phone

-------- Original message --------
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvements report 
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
To: "Governance (governance at lists.igcaucus.org)" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
CC:  

I have dug up this old message from Anriette, which I think hits the nail on the head. With her on the IGF Improvements WG I thought perhaps there was some hope for some real improvement. 
Are Anriette and others who shared the views she expresses below happy with the final report? 
What is missing? What is its greatest strength?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:57 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: IGF Establishment
> 
> 
> What was interesting about being on the Working Group on IGF
> Improvements is that at the outset (hearings and open meetings in late
> 2010) this 'IGF establishment' asserted quite vehemently that the IGF
> does not need improvement, and, in the unlikely case that it does, it
> should be left alone to self-improve.
> 
> For me probably the greatest achievements of this working group is that
> by the end of the working group process, this 'establishment' had agreed
> that there was room for improvement and contributed suggestions for how
> it can take place.
> 
> Suggestions to talk about 'outcomes' which many of us made on open
> consultations since the first IGF were always met by this
> 'establishment' as outrageous, and likely to lead to the demise of the
> IGF. Now I think they realise that absolutely no outcomes is a far
> greater risk.
> 
> I.o.w. the IGF 'establishment' has shifted quite a bit in the last
> months. Let's hope they are also willing to do so in relation to talking
> about 'EC'.
> 
> Anriette
> 

____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120728/bf6d6759/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