[discuss] IGF & NetMundial futures was Re: [] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT

Sun Apr 27 21:36:23 UTC 2014

Hi,

A quick response on having just gotten home.

On 27-Apr-14 03:04, karklinsj at gmail.com wrote:

> I would like to comment on your “…it is time to IGF MAG to through off
> its self imposed limitations ….”

I really wish I had writen "throw off" instead, but, be that as it may.

> Agreeing that IGF needs to find a way to demonstrate more tangible
> outcome of its work, I doubt that NetMundial experience will be applied
> in 2014/2015 editions. There are several reasons for that:
> 

Well, the beginning of change could be possible in 2014.  One would not
expect the entire ship to turn to a new course in the next half year,
but there is still plenty of time to do something so as not  to lose the
momentum.

Even if it is only to initiate the discussion on:

"What is it we can learn from NetMundial.
 Taking that into account with the CSTD WGIGF improvement
 recommendations, what should we do about it"

>   *
>     NetMundial was focused on 2 issues - IGF is broad ranging discussion

True, But the IGF can select a single topic on which it wants to arrive
at a multistakeholder statement in a year.

Just because many subjects are discussed, it does not mean they are all
ripe for multistakeholder statements.

>   *
>     Purpose/aim of both meetings were different

I would contend the the purpose/aim of each is up to its organizers and
participants, those can evolve over time.  They are not fundamentally
dissimilar.

>   *
>     Drafting of the Final statement started well in advance of NetMundial

Indeed, and the IGF is supposed to be more than a single meeting we
spend all year planning.  It is supposed to be a continuous process with
work that continues from meeting to meeting.

NetMundial showed that it could be done.  Up until now many assumed that
it could not be done.  But now we have a positive example of how to
achieve outcomes by using the Internet and other resources effectively
to prepare the work in a broad multistakeholder manner.  Imagine what
could be done in twice as long (both prep and meeting time).

>   *
>     NetMundial had far more resources in terms of Secretarial support
>     (HL Committee, Bureau)

Having once been a member of the IGF secretariat, who can no longer find
employment with them for financial reasons, I can easily agree with
this.  However, a lot has been said about this over the last few years.
It would seem to me, at this point, that if the IGF can't raise the
money for an adequate secretariat after a decade of trying and the CSTD
recommendations on the need, then perhaps that is a problem that should
be considered before renewing its mandate.  A mendicant forum is really
not an appropriate solution to the pressing issues of Ig.

It is obvious that the money is out there, otherwise NetMundial could
never have happened.

> 
> 
> That said, I hope that IGF will be able to demonstrate that things
> happen as a result of IGF elsewhere. You know that I launched a call for
> a voluntary information submission:

Yes, I saw that call, and heard it repeated.  I wish you success with it.

Avri