[governance] [bestbits] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva

[William Drake]

Hi

> On Jan 28, 2017, at 11:30, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeremy:
> That's why we just work with what we have, incrementally empowering the IGF to fill that vacuum.
> 
> W:
> 1+. You are absolutely right. This is the only way forward. But it needs some time before "traditionalists" will recognize, that the UN resolution language - IGF and enhanced cooperation are two different animals - is, in particular after the completion of the IANA transition, water under the bridge. 
> 


+1 another. Still think WGEC should at least discuss putting something in place under IGF aegis, e.g.


> On Dec 14, 2016, at 13:31, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Strengthening the IGF is nominally a topic outside the WGEC’s planned scope, but in the event that some people once again lock in on the long-running and highly contested demand for an intergovernmental policy space, there could be a connection made.  As I suggested in the WGIG+10 anniversary book released earlier this year, “the most desirable approach would be to create an intergovernmental working group under the umbrella of the IGF. After all, governments already routinely meet for high-level events alongside IGF meetings, and they could similarly add a day to each of the IGF’s Open Consultations to engage in dialogue on a work programme, preferably subject to rules of procedure that allow nongovernmental participants to observe and weigh in at designated times, etc. But as such a proposal seems unlikely to garner support from the governments in question, perhaps an ongoing working group under the aegis of the CSTD could be an alternative.”  While the objections are easy to anticipate, either approach would be better than the G77’s & China’s proposal to the WSIS+10 review for a stand-alone intergovernmental ‘forum,’ or than a status quo in which discussions get diverted into the ITU, Wuzhen, etc.  And the IGF umbrella presumably could have the positive externality of deepening government engagement in the rest of the IGF process.
> 
> That said, I suspect there’s little hope of such suggestions being seriously considered, and that things will continue to drift along as is…
> 


-------------- 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