<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">My assumption looking at Jeremy's draft was that agreeing the two statements was the concrete operational focus and so suggested a way of organizing around those more intensively. If instead people prefer to spend a couple days discussing the state of activism and who's doing what where and what are the opportunities for inter-networking etc, ok….some of us have been there done that before (again, I suggest having a look at <a href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/9788/">http://www.apc.org/en/node/9788/</a>) but we can do it again. However, if that's the deal, I would agree with Parminder that trying to also work out two statements is too loaded an agenda. Which, it follows, would mean not keeping the existing schedule.<div><div><br><div>One could try blending the topological discussion with one output effort, e.g.</div><div><br></div><div>Day 1 - Saturday</div><div>state of CS advocacy networks/efforts</div><div><br></div><div>Day 2 - Sunday</div><div>Discussion and drafting a statement on either WCIT or principles</div><div><br></div><div>In which case I'd suggest choosing WCIT > principles and use the concrete case of the various advocacy initiatives that have been undertaken around WCIT as a way into the "state of" in day 1. After all, we have this situation where there've been multiple networks mobilized around WCIT but with varying levels of connection/disconnection (with the IGC mostly disconnected). Why not look at who what when why and consider both a) what could be done going forward in the month left before WCIT to force multiply and b) what larger lessons can be gleaned that could inform efforts going forward, and then let that exercise feed into a concrete effort to say something and build connections going forward in a bounded policy space?</div><div><br></div><div>I guess my bottom line concern at this point is that various folks have lots of agendas and it might be hard to do justice to them all in two days, so i suggest picking two rather than overloading and ending up empty handed.</div><div><br></div><div>BD</div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 10, 2012, at 4:22 AM, parminder wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Hi All<br>
<br>
I prefer that we keep to the existing draft schedule, although
Bills suggestion of doing away with panels etc can be considered.
I am also unsure about the practicality of bringing out some kind
of a draft on IG principles from the meeting. I have always been a
big votary of </font><font face="Verdana">global principles for </font><font face="Verdana">IG but the proposed exercise seems rather rushed,
and in my view, may not bear the expected fruits. One would also
like to know what is wrong with the principles put together by the
IRP group which took about 2 years to work on. I am not in favour
of any minimalistic statement that says the most banal stuff
(which too however can be used for partisan purposes) because,
inter alia I am against politics of minimalism. <br>
<br>
I also think than in trying to focus just on two tracks of IG
principles and WCIT meeting, the proposed best bits meeting is
loosing its initial focus - on which understanding the groups
participating/ supporting it came together. Let me quote from the
initial concept note circulated by Jeremy<br>
<br>
</font>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><p class="western" lang="en-AU">"We therefore propose an inclusive
gathering of key civil society organisations from across the
world,
at which they would have the opportunity to highlight their
various
initiatives, and provide the opportunity for mutual learning and
broader engagement. The gathering is to be called “Best Bits”
because it does not aim to present a single solution for
ratification
by the assembled groups, but rather to offer an open space where
each
group can present and advocate for the initiatives that they
believe
offer the best positive agenda for advancing broadly shared civil
society interests in Internet governance."</p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; direction: ltr; color: #000000; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
P.western { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: en-AU }
P.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans"; font-size: 12pt; so-language: zh-CN }
P.ctl { font-family: "Lohit Hindi"; font-size: 12pt; so-language: hi-IN }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style><br>
<font face="Verdana">I think this initial focus needs to be
maintained, while we must certainly see how much we can work
towards specific outcomes. In this regard, I am not very sure we
can achieve a statement of IG principles from the meeting. A
possible common position on WCIT is however much more doable. Even
such a position however should be first discussed and debated
enough - preferably on this list, and on the IGC list, to get an
fully informed view on what should be done and how. <br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote> If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why
spend two hours talking about it? (Bill)</blockquote>
Firstly, I when it was first suggested I did not take this gathering
to be focussed basically on specific draftings. I am a great fan of
such focussed effort, but that was not how the meeting was
propositioned. It was more of bringing diversity from across CS to
one place and to explore what we can do from and with it as perhaps
the name best bits suggests...<br>
<br>
Secondly, enhanced cooperation has everything to do both with any
global principle making for IG and the WCIT discussions. <br>
<font face="Verdana"><br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 09 September 2012 07:11 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:BFEAC86C-BB16-4183-9899-EC21A7567F15@uzh.ch" type="cite">Hi Jeremy
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for moving this forward. Your message to the
governance list today prompted me to have a non-cursory second
look at the draft schedule, and I'm wondering if we might not
want to consider others options before locking in on the present
version, which is:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Day 1 - Saturday<br>
09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review</div>
<div>
<div>11:00 - 12:45 - The ITU and the International
Telecommunications Regulations</div>
<div>14:00 - 15:45 - Declarations of Internet rights and
Internet governance principles</div>
<div>16:00 - 17:45 - Process towards enhanced cooperation on
Internet public policy issues</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Day 2 - Sunday<br>
09:00 - 12:45 (stream 1) - Drafting a civil society statement to
WCIT<br>
09:00 - 12:45 (stream 2) - Drafting civil society IG principles
for the IGF<br>
<div>14:00 - 15:00 - Streams return together, present and
discuss draft texts from morning</div>
15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps<br>
<div>17:00 - 17:30 - Press conference and close</div>
<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div>Thoughts:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. We all have lots of experience with splitting meetings
into break-out drafting groups and views on its utility. I'm
in the camp that thinks that in a setting like this, the costs
would significantly outweigh the benefits. I strongly believe
it'd much better if everyone can be in on both conversations
and approach all the potential outputs holistically. </div>
<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div>2. I don't think it's optimal to devote day 1 to three big
topic areas and then return to two of them on day 2 and try to
draft texts. I'd rather keep the flow of discussion and
thinking on each piece all together than break it. Moreover,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> a. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why
spend two hours talking about it? As we all know, there is a
full-day meeting organized by APC, ISOC and ICC the day after
Best Bits. Enhanced cooperation will also be taken up in a
main session, an Euro Commission Open Forum (oddly enough),
etc. So it's not clear to me what the value added of loading
this into an already heavy schedule would be. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> b. I wonder about the efficacy of trying to write
something serious, in a group context, from a full stop, on
WCIT and IG principles in the time allotted. If all we're
shooting for is a page and half of high-level generalities
fine, but if we're trying to actually influence governments
and other stakeholders it could be more demanding. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> c. I wonder about the need for panels and panelists. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> d. For a two-day meeting that comes before another day of
meetings (enhanced cooperation, GigaNet symposium, ISOC,
ministerial, etc etc) and then four long days of IGF, I would
suggest trying not to make this feel like an endurance testing
marathon. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. Hence, I would like to suggest what I believe would be
an easier, more focused, and ultimately more productive and
enjoyable approach:</div>
<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div>Day 1 - Saturday</div>
<div>09:00 - 10:45 <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Group review and discussion
of the state of play and our goals regarding global IG
principles </div>
<div>11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting
exercise</div>
<div>13:30 - 17:45<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Drafting civil society IG
principles for the IGF</div>
<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break:
after-white-space; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Day
2 - Sunday</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>09:00 - 10:45 <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>Group
review and discussion of the state of play
and our goals regarding WCIT</div>
<div>11:00 - 12:00 Organization and
mapping of drafting exercise</div>
<div>13:30 - 17:45<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>Drafting
a civil society statement to WCIT </div>
</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br>
</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Just
my preference…others may have others, so how
about let's discuss and decide together?</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br>
</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">BTW,
perhaps in a separate thread, we might want
to discuss what's supposed to be done with
these statements. How exactly do we see
"principles for the IGF" and a "statement to
WCIT" feeding into the respective processes,
etc…</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br>
</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Best,</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br>
</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Bill</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br>
***************************************************<br>
William J. Drake<br>
International Fellow & Lecturer<br>
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br>
University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a></div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.williamdrake.org/">www.williamdrake.org</a><br>
****************************************************</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>