<html>
<body>
<font size=3>hi parminder, bill<br><br>
parminder, thanks for moving us forward on workshop proposals<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> I want to re-state my
proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. It will<br>
> serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the
profile of<br>
> IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these
are from<br>
> our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May
IGF<br>
> consultations). <br><br>
> Second, if we really want to foster dialogue on the four themes
proposed,<br>
> probably we ought to consider proposing workshops on each.
This could be done<br>
> in addition to or instead of making a statement about the
plenaries. If it's<br>
> impossible for the caucus to agree on such workshops, then varying
coalitions<br>
> of the willing could evolve each, perhaps with the caucus/list
serving as<br>
> initial facilitators.</blockquote><br>
</font>I think it's useful to think about the themed workshops,
separately from the open workshops - in some ways.<br><br>
Themed workshops will feed into the main plenaries, and (i think) will be
more influential in terms of framing the debates around the 4 themes (at
least, this is my understanding of the rationale having themed worshops,
prior to the same-theme main session).<br><br>
Open workshops will provide more space for addressing very specific
issues, issues not addressed by the sub-themes, emerging issues
etc<br><br>
I'm not sure about the caucus proposing workshops for all themes - that
would be a lot of work, and i'm not sure is the best role for the caucus
- the coalitions are working on proposals, several organisations etc..
and we don't want unnecssary duplication..<br><br>
but the caucus could play a useful role in<br><br>
- acting as a clearinghouse for any CS folk who want to let us know what
they're planning for the IGF<br><br>
- support IGC members who are organising workshops (not as caucus
events)<br><br>
- develop proposals for workshops which are central to the IGC
objectives, and which are difficult for others to organise
(poliitically, lack of capacity, outreach etc) <br><br>
- work with ca and others in brazil to prepare for the pre IGF CS event -
a good opportunity to prepare in general; and <br>
specifically for day 1: critical internet resources (there are no
workshops prior to this session)<br><br>
it makes good sense to develop workshops (or ideas for other inputs)
around the 3 agreed IGC themes - that will ensure continuity, building on
collective work etc - but, it's important for us to know as soon as
possible what the sub-themes are as they will affect the nature of themed
workshops proposed, and those that have to be open<br><br>
I know the CS MAG participants will let us know as soon as they can on
that one<br><br>
So, maybe a good first round would be to go through each of these themes,
discuss what type of format the issue could be best addressed in (eg bill
has made some suggestions for how certain themes could be addressed) -
i've added my own comments<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>> (1) Global
Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions<br><br>
> a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we
need to use global<br>
> institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes
between<br>
> "technical" and "public policy" issues, and
between public policy and the<br>
> "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes
an Internet<br>
> governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens
when policy<br>
> concerns are closely linked to technical
administration?</blockquote><br>
</font>i think this is interesting in and of itself.. and if you were
really to do it justice, i think it would have to be a standalone (open?)
workshop - they are only 90 minutes long.. i think for something
like this, you need a good backrgound paper.. i don't think you'd want to
deal with the issue purely through workshop format<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>> b) What was
intended by the TA's call for the "development of<br>
> globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated
with the<br>
> coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and
how can this<br>
> goal be pursued? </blockquote><br>
</font>it's hard to know what's planned for the critical internet
resources session - is it going to deal with in in line with (b) above?
or is it more likely to focus on a challenge/problem (root zone file, dns
ownership etc)<br><br>
but agree with bill, that we should focus energies around this issue, on
the critical internet resources main session.. and how we can influence
this<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>> (2) Global
Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the<br>
> Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda
in IG<br>
> (this can also build on the giganet session on a similar
theme)</blockquote><br>
</font>bill commented extensively on this, and even if other proposals
address this theme, it's broad and large enough a topic that if the IGC
wanted to organise a workshop on this, there'd be plenty to talk about..
it would just be important to ensure there's no duplication of effort and
some coordination between similar workshop proposals<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>> (3) The Role
and Mandate of the IGF.<br>
If there were to be a caucus proposal, I would suggest it focus on this.
The topic is clearly specified, non-redundant, and entirely workable, and
one would think we'd be able to reach agreement on a proposal since it
doesn't have to do with core resources etc. It's also something the
caucus has been raising for a long while---in fact, for some of us, since
before<br>
the WGIG---so Cs has already put down markers on it and can make a
distinct contribution. I'd be willing to collaborate with others on
this if there's interest.</blockquote><br>
i think this is interesting.. and forward looking, which we need..
<br><br>
several contributors commented, usefully in the main i think, during
consultations on concrete ways the IGF could address more elements of
it's mandate.. including apc's contribution<br><br>
karen</font></body>
<br>
</html>