[ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [Igfregionals] Fwd: EC HLIG meeting report

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Sun Oct 14 10:15:08 UTC 2018


I think that there is an opportunity to link the IG space with the broader Digital space that is advancing and growing.
IG is not well understood outside of our little space IMO, and when you look outside of ICANN the “Internet Governance” messaging doesn’t really work to my mind, rebranding and focussing on broader digital governance topics might be an opportunity for the IGF to expand and become more materially important beyond the debate space concept.

On 14 Oct 2018, at 12:03, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi

Thanks OCL, interesting. Just a couple observations:

> 1)      Improve/Change the IGF mandate in order to have more outputs, recommendations and guidelines that could be useful for the governments and multi-stakeholder community.


This is what we put in the WGIG report and it was retained in the Tunis Agenda (and echoed at NETmundial), but the powers that be were very much opposed to allowing discussion of even soft recommendations coming out of IGF (as per the CSTD WG on improvements).  Is there any evidence they’ve changed positions on this?

> 7)      Explain better to the community the meaning of Internet Governance and eventually discuss inside IGF community the opportunity to change the name of IGF as many people don’t know what IGF means.


This is a little baffling.  Make sure people know what IG is but then change the name because people don’t know IG is?

> 9)      Create continuity between the IGF’s annual events.


While there’s been progress on intersessional activities, the lack of prospects for real recommendations greatly surpasses engagement.  How much serious volunteer engagement would there be in ICANN if the only possible outcomes of the works were ‘dynamic coalition’ statements,  ‘best practices,' ‘messages’ and more chat ups?

And with IGF neutered at the outset, people have spent over a decade trying to devise alternative mechanisms that might actually do things, e.g.  NMI, 1Net, FoC, & ‘global commissions’…not to mention WGEC, Wuzhen summits and the rest…not to great effect.  So the energy moves into nontransparent/participatory settings, coalitions of like minded governments, etc….

Meanwhile host governments increasingly seem to view the IGF as their rotating property, something we pushed back on for years.

But of course none of this is directly about names and numbers so...

Best

Bill






***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Department of Communication and Media Research
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists)
www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org/>
***********************************************






_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20181014/ce28fe24/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list