<html>
<body>
<font size=3>hi parminder<br><br>
I think you should submit the prposals (as summarised below, with the
noted exception re the IGP led proposal)<br><br>
if you're going to be late, i'd suggest you send the secretariat a note
to that effect.. i'm sure they'll understand<br><br>
karen<br><br>
<br>
At 03:27 30/04/2008, you wrote:<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font size=2 color="#000080">Sorry, Bill and others who may have raised
points that I may have not been able to address. I am very busy in an
ITfC organized workshop on ‘ICTs in Indian education policy’ in New
delhi, though I have dutifully kept an eye on all emails to the list.
<br>
<br>
Aslo, as you will all understand, at this point of the consensus process,
I would not like to get into too many discussions
</font><font face="Wingdings" size=2 color="#000080">J<br>
</font> <br>
<br>
However since Bill asks for some clarification before he could say yes or
no (though I note he has said yes to all in a later email) I thought I
should clarify.<br>
<br>
> ”---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>
Yes, that how it is. <br>
<br>
<br>
Also I will clean up the proposals to my best ability, if the consensus
is reached, in the little time I will have today before submitting, but
if I cant, I think they will let us do it in the next 2-3 days, and that
MAG wouldn’t start to see the proposals immediately. I will submit three
proposals ands will ask Milton to submit the post-JPA one, that is, to
repeat, if the consensus carries. <br>
<br>
Best Parminder <br>
<br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></div>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>From:</b> William Drake
[<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch" eudora="autourl">
mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 28, 2008 10:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Singh, Parminder; Governance<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] IGF workshops<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3> <br>
</font><font size=4>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>
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>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3> <br>
</font>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br><br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a></blockquote></body>
</html>