[discuss]  FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sat Apr 26 21:51:31 UTC 2014
Having participated in both, I would say that they accomplish different
purposes. First I would congratulate Brazil, and especially the
organizers and EMC on a huge effort and successful meeting. I would
further agree that the stakeholders played very nicely together, for the
most part, but Net Mundial was a more directed than organic process.
There were some suggestions on how to improve the IGF. I think we all
agree on the need to find better ways to capture the learning and
capacity building nature of IGF and its related national and regional
fora so that those lessons can be be carried back or pushed forward. We
should also explore what role IGF can play in the emerging issues
(previously orphan issues) questions.
There is a unique benefit in not having a specific document - the free
flow of ideas with no consideration of negotiated position which is
always inherent in outcome documents and usually chills that wide open
exchange of ideas.
While the inputs to Net Mundial were free flowing, the outcome was a
negotiated process, with drafting going into the wee hours.
There are plenty of IGF improvements which we could consider to make
learning/capacity building more relevant and portable, not to mention
improvements to formats and agendas: the
effectiveness/value/relevance/inclusiveness of topics/panels and new
opportunities for interaction which can put in place before changing the
character of the meeting. Another improvement which IGF could attempt
would be to better integrate panel participants - not just among the
major stakeholder groups, but also between technical and policy,
developed and developing... If one of the main benefits that IGF can
provide is helping find/uncover middle ground on contentious issues,
then we need to be speaking with each other to find that middle ground,
not just among ourselves or at each other. That exchange of ideas could
be more wide open :-) 1net has been discussing the issues of technical
and policy competence as well as how that implicates the
non-initiate... Maybe IGF can contribute something here as well.
On 4/26/2014 3:59 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> And beyond exegesis and spin on the document we should try to import
> some of those techniques into the IGF so that it can also learn how to
> produce some outcomes, e.g. inputs from IGF to other Ig organizations.
> Following the lead of NetMundial, it is time for the IGF MAG to throw
> off its self imposed limitation of being merely a program committee so
> it can make recommendations to the UNSG on how to turn the IGF into an
> organization that can actually produce results. While it is true that
> the IGF has achieved a little just by existing, at this point if it
> wants to remain viable it needs to move beyond its infancy and become a
> useful organization.
> In addition to some of the important work done by NetMundial in bridging
> the gap between the Internet and Human Rights and opening the door to
> discussions on revising the government defined roles and
> responsibilities of the actors in the Internet ecosystem from 2003, it
> has shown us that it is possible for a multistakeholder organization to
> produce outcomes. It is now time for the IGF to figure out how to do
> the same.
> Additionally, the NetMundial has sent some tasks the IGF's way. I look
> forward to work on such issues as Net Neutrality at IGF2014.
> The mission of the IGF has been given a real push by NetMundial, I hope
> we don't waste the opportunity.
> On 26-Apr-14 16:36, John Curran wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com
>> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>> I think the opportunity ahead is how to further examine what the
>>> "statement of Sao Paolo" says and how to continue work, especially at
>>> IGF, but not only there.
>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss