[governance] [5 of 6] How best to link with regional meetings?

[Baudouin SCHOMBE]

My view below

Very good vision, Jeremy. Congrats

Baudouin

>
> *How best to link with regional meetings?*
>
>   Since the first IGF meeting was held in Athens, a similar concept has
> been taken up at a regional and national level.  There are currently as many
> as eight of these at a regional level, and fourteen at a national level.
>  Often, these meetings also use the name "Internet Governance Forum" or
> "IGF".  However, they have no formal link with the Internet Governance Forum
> beyond being listed on the IGF's Web site, and sharing a few of the same
> participants.
>
> The main issue that this question raises, as I see it, is whether there
> should be a stronger link between the regional meetings and the central one.
>  If so, we need to consider and provide feedback on questions such as:
>
>
>    - What criteria should the regional/national IGFs satisfy in order to
>    qualify for this stronger linkage?  For example, how open and
>    multi-stakeholder must they be, and how transparent and inclusive their
>    organisation?
>
> *As primary endpoint, should the organization or institution has been
present and active since the first phase of WSIS up the second.
The secondary criteria that must be taken into account are:
-Implementation of the action plan and the Tunis Agenda at national level:
constraints and challenges
-National ICT strategies
-The structural mechanism put in place for the management of gTLDs and
stakeholders such as the registry, registrars etc ...
-The consumer right ....
These approaches at national and regional level requires a working synergy
between all actors involved and engaged in the ownership and development of
ICT service providers and consumers.
A national report on the development of ICT is an option of capital
importance.*

>
>    - If there should be a set of criteria that regional/national IGFs must
>    meet, how and by whom should it be developed?
>
> *To this question, I am referring to the mechanism of WSIS implementation
Action Lines. Until proven otherwise, agencies of the United Nations system
were each responsible for coordinating the implementation of Geneva Action
Plan. In my humble opinion, it is logical that these agencies play the role
it has assigned.
In collaboration with official institutions, the private sector and civil
society entities involved in the process of building an information society
should work in synergy.*

>
>    - Should it be permitted to have more than one IGF per region or
>    country, or should the global IGF enforce a rule that only one event per
>    region or country can be officially recognised?
>
> *It is really important to have a national IGF by country first and a
regional IGF will resume all national concerns in order to build a regional
position.*

>
>    - Should the programme of the regional/national IGFs be coordinated
>    with that of the global IGF?  If so, how? - perhaps through some sort of
>    global council of IGFs?
>
> *It is a process of extreme importance to the exponential growth of
digital technology. The digital divide is becoming increasingly growing in
some communities. The use of this technology must be well controlled to
secure the most venerable are no longer in that case, women, children,
people of the third age, disability .... But the people, communities that
have no knowledge of the destructive capacity of this technology.
It is desirable to have national IGFs consist of actors involved and
coordinated among relevant institutions and agencies of the UN system to the
realities of each country.
The national coordination will in turn set up a regional coordination with
focus thematics groups split in each country.*

>
>    - Should written reports of regional/national IGFs be distributed to
>    the global IGF?
>
> *I admire the logic of the problem as submitted. Indeed, with such
organizational arrangements as proposed above, it is essential that each
year there is a national report and a regional report.*

>
>    - Should verbal reports from regional/national IGFs be given at a main
>    session at the global IGF?
>
> *This concern follows the foregoing, it is crucial at this stage that each
region has its verbal report that will provide power during the plenary by
the national participants of the IGF.*

>
>    - Should panelists from the other IGFs be given priority in selection
>    for panels at the global IGF?
>
> *Indeed, in my opinion, the panelists IGF world must be identified and
selected among the IGF panelists from regional and national level.*

>
>    - Should each session organiser at the global IGF be required to give
>    an opportunity for reports relevant to that session
>    from regional/national IGF organisers?
>
>  *Such an approach may be considered during the plenary sessions or
concerns raised by participants.*


>  I'm sure you can think of more ideas, so please let's hear them.  A
> practical example of how one organisation has addressed a similar issue is
> found in the guidelines that the TED conference sets for its affiliated
> events: http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/351.
>
> --
>
> *Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> *CI is 50*
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
> 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
> rights around the world.
> *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50*
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100624/3d6355d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t