IGFWatch news
Search
Book announcement: Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum
By terminus
-
22/5/2008
Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum
MAG's May meeting: debates and a role call, otherwise no surprises
By terminus
-
17/5/2008
The report of the May meeting of the IGF's MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group, formerly just Advisory Group) was posted yesterday. It is the third such report, and the first to contain a schedule listing all those who participated in the meeting, not just the appointed members. These include such shadowy figures as the "Regional Coordinators" - who had never been identified by name before now - and those who are worrying classed together as "Advisors and Others".
Steps towards Hyderabad
By terminus
-
14/5/2008
The May open consultation held in preparation for the third meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, to be held this year in Hyderabad, India, finished about twelve hours ago. As usual, progress is slow, with many of the same points being raised time and again without any decisions being taken on them. Having said that, there does now seem to be a firmer resolve to increase the focus and interactivity of the Hyderabad meeting and its interconnection with the IGF's subsidiary processes.
Was my judgment on the IGF too harsh?
By terminus
-
5/5/2008
Since a number of the shortcomings of the IGF Secretariat and Advisory Group that I have highlighted in my research are now being addressed, it might be argued that the verdict of my thesis (and the forthcoming book into which it has been adapted) has become too harsh. For example, I wrote of the process by which the Advisory Group was appointed for Athens, and re-appointed for Rio, that:In no sense could the Secretariat's selection of candidates for the Advisory Group, in a closed process pursuant to criteria that were never published, be described as consensual or democratic.
Submission on the draft programme for the Hyderabad meeting
By terminus
-
30/4/2008
The draft programme for the Hyderabad meeting incorporates a number of incremental improvements to the programmes for the Athens and Rio meetings which take into account some of the concerns and suggestions that civil society and other stakeholders have long expressed. However whilst this movement is in the right direction, the rate of progress remains too slow in light of the fact that at the mid-term of its initial five year mandate, the IGF remains incapable of fulfilling each of the roles that the Tunis Agenda sets out for it.
February open and MAG meetings: IGF reform is a hard slog
By terminus
-
2/3/2008
These comments on the flurry of IGF developments during February is a little belated, since my dissertation on the IGF is due this month, and it will not be possible to reference those developments in the submitted version (particularly when I am attempting to reduce, not increase its word length). However it would be remiss of me not to make a few brief comments here.
Advisory Group decides not to open its mailing list
By terminus
-
7/2/2008
Last month, an edited compilation of the mailing list discussions of the Advisory Group on the issue of its own rotation was posted to the IGF's Web forum. Now the IGF's Web site tells us that this was not simply a one-off:Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are available on the Forum Section on a regular basis.Sure enough, a second such document has just been posted, covering the Advisory Group's own views of the calls for improvement of its transparency.
Feedback for Taking Stock of Rio
By terminus
-
29/12/2007
As last year, an online form is available for posting feedback about the Rio meeting. Whilst submissions will probably eventually be archived on the IGF Secretariat's Web site, in the meantime I'm posting my contribution here:
Policy development at the edges: conclusions on IGF 2008
By terminus
-
16/11/2007
The most significant development of the Rio IGF meeting was the dawning acknowledgement, particularly evident during the session on Taking Stock and the Way Foward, that the conference format of the annual plenary meetings is increasingly irrelevant to the work of the IGF. It is becoming obvious to many that another three years of the same dry platitudes on openness, security, diversity and access are going to achieve nothing, and that the IGF must move on. Even the addition of a plenary session on the provocative issue of critical Internet resources this year was insufficient to generate any new spark.
Day 4 of Rio IGF
By terminus
-
16/11/2007
The final day of the RIo IGF meeting began with a workshop organised by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on "Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF." This was the workshop I had most been looking forward to, since it is by assessing the IGF's achievements against its mandate in the Tunis Agenda that its shortcomings are most apparent.
