[governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris

[parminder]

Also important in this regard is that the UN Secretary General is 
expected to give a call for beginning to prepare for the next IGF before 
MAG meets in May, and this call has always (as far as I remember) 
included the overall theme of the next IGF.  Which means that perhaps UN 
SG will simply pick up the theme suggested by the host country or 
something like that; whereby the MAG, and through it the larger 
community, may have effectively excluded itself from this very important 
part of IGF preparation and program. Pl correct me if I am wrong.
.. parminder


On Monday 04 March 2013 03:47 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>>> On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a
>>> somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus
>>> starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to
>>> leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come
>>> in.
>> Sorry you felt unpleasantly surprised, but this was proposed by
>> APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support.
> Since this was not suggested in either APC's written contribution nor
> in IGC's written contribution, I'm assuming that "this was proposed by
> APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support" refers to a MAG-internal
> process".
>
> So in the MAG internally there is broad support for the idea of not
> choosing an overall IGF theme until the workshop proposals have come in,
> but at the same time those outside the MAG are asked to make written
> contributions with "suggestions on themes" being part of what is being
> explicitly asked for, and "Discussions on the possible main theme and
> sub-themes of IGF 2013" was a main agenda item for the open
> consultations ???
>
> Nota bene, there was no agenda item like "Discuss whether the choice
> of main theme should be left often until after the workshop proposals
> have been received".
>
> In comparison to the other integrity related concerns that I raised,
> this is a very minor point, but I still think that it is one that
> should not be simply glossed over.
>
>>> In trying to put in this way a bit of emphasis on aspects of
>>> integrity, I felt rather alone; it felt like during these
>>> consultations, points on the need for integrity were not getting
>>> support from anyone else.
>> Here I really don't know what you mean.  There was two days of robust
>> participation by many people who I believe favor integrity, including
>> your CS colleagues.  In what sense were you a lonely voice in the
>> wilderness for integrity?
>>
>> Just wondering,
> The relatively major integrity related points that I raised were:
>
> (1) The theme for the 2012 IGF was wonderfully wordsmithed, but it did
> not match the actual substantive content of that IGF meeting (that is
> the context in which I explicitly used the word "integrity").
>
> (2) The "Effective Participation of All Stakeholders in Internet
> Governance" overall subtheme suggestion from IGC.
>
> (3) "And I would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at
> the IGF, especially in recent years, of emphasizing human rights, and
> it would be very valuable to take that forward in a more
> outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented way, moving it from the
> 'talking about it' to the 'actually getting it done' stage, and I would
> very much appreciate if the program for the IGF specifically encourages
> this kind of practical side to it, to move the IGF from being very much
> a talk and social event to something that has a very strong practical
> policy impact."
>
> (4) I quoted the recommendations of the WG on Internet Improvements
> which are asking for explicit outcomes, and pointed out that if such
> outcomes are supposed to emerge from the discussions at the IGF, then
> that needs to be taken into account in the design of the main sessions
> so that what will be written in the outcome document will have
> actually emerged from the discussions at the IGF meeting (the
> transcript has this as "the structure of the main sessions in the sense
> of the sessions that have interpretation should really reflect that the
> structure should be chosen so that these outcomes are actually outcomes
> of those sessions, so that there should be a deliberative process of the
> community of participants in the IGF leading to this outcome").
>
> If any of these points were picked up by other speakers, or if any
> other speakers made any similarly specifically integrity oriented
> comments, I have missed those comments.
>
> Especially with regard to point (4) I find it worrying that there was
> so much discussion about main sessions formats without (as far as I
> noticed) anyone besides myself looking at that topic in relation to
> the need to having integrity in the process that produces the outcome
> documents.
>
> I find this particularly worrying because in view of what went wrong in
> the process for producing the WSIS+10 outcome document, it should have
> been rather obvious that it is important to pay attention to making
> sure that the process for producing the IGF outcome documents will have
> integrity.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/6fe832bf/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