[connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] Internet governance

On 17/11/2013 17:23, Gordon Lennox wrote:

re: DG CONNECT's statement:

> The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and
> streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory
> Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in
> producing concrete deliverables.

the RIPE NCC kindly sponsored travel/hotel expenses for me to go to the IGF
meeting in Bali in October.

I was initially puzzled that there was an explicit intention not to make
any decisions there, but it quickly became clear that this was a very smart
thing to do.  The result was an unusually open atmosphere considering the
attendee spread - civil society, lawmakers, regulatory people, politicians,
etc.   Pretty much everyone was on equal footing, and that made it easy to
approach people or to be approached.  Most importantly, the majority of
people were enthusiastic about understanding other peoples' points of view.

So although the IGF does not produce concrete deliverables - I assume this
means anything ranging from policy documents to legal agreements - it
produces something much more valuable, namely a better quality
understanding of the issues surrounding internet governance from a variety
of valid and important points of view.  This allows the people who are
tasked by our societies to create laws and regulations, to do so on a much
more informed basis from a wider cross-section of opinions.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the IFG meeting is changed to create a
requirement for "concrete deliverables", this critical feature of the forum
will be lost.

Nick