<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] IGF workshops</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi Parminder,<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for this. If we could clarify something before having to say yes or no, I’d appreciate it.<BR>
<BR>
Is the idea that the IGC would be submitting only responses to the questions that are supposed to be answered by 30 April, # 1, 2, 4 and 9? Of are you thinking of plugging in all the material now at hand for all nine, irrespective of what state it’s in and whether it’s ready for prime time? If it is the latter, maybe others have a different view, but I wouldn’t think it would be a procedural violation of the consensus call to simply edit out some of the various process comments being exchanged among WG members within these docs, like “NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no more than 6-7 panelists plus chair” and “it would be good to have a government (or two) and an intergovermmental as co-sponsors - i would propose the COE/UNESCO as possibilities - brazil, uk, australia, others?” and “we need to work on thisk, but for sure it will if we get the right people as speakers” and lists of people/orgs that might (or might not) be contacted about cosponsoring/speaking...etc. It would be odd to me anyway to include such material in something that will be reviewed by the MAG. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
A couple of substantive comments FWIW, which is not much I guess, given that I’ve missed the deadline.<BR>
<BR>
I’m still having a hard time getting my head around the precise focus of the rights proposal (“What is lacking is a rights framework for Internet governance that can address these issues and conflicts at each ‘layer’ of the Internet environment, from the critical Internet resources of infrastructure and code through to the content and applications that they support”---so all aspects of IG to be viewed as rights issues, not just access?), its connection to internationally agreed HR vs creating new rights, etc. <BR>
<BR>
On the Fulfilling WS, I wonder how helpful it is to frame it in terms of this binary: “Some believe that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked or minimised in its operation to date. Others maintain, to the contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion into something more.?” Some MAGites et al might read this as suggesting that those who think elements of the mandate have been overlooked by definition want to “transform it from a non-binding forum,” which is not representative of the range of views/options and could set off alarm bells and bring us back to the pre-Rio worrying about this being ‘controversial’ etc. BTW, this needs to list at least one or two cosponsors, no? Has the WG reached out to anyone?<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
On 4/28/08 6:21 PM, "Parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
Hi all<BR>
<BR>
Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC<BR>
proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad. <BR>
<BR>
1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty<BR>
<BR>
2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?<BR>
<BR>
3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance<BR>
<BR>
4. The role and mandate of the IGF<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a<BR>
rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF<BR>
secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT. <BR>
<BR>
Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as<BR>
they stand...<BR>
<BR>
While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they<BR>
should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.<BR>
<BR>
In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'<BR>
vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into<BR>
consideration the nature and the extent of dissent. <BR>
<BR>
Thanks<BR>
<BR>
Parminder <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>