<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I agree<BR>
<BR>
Lee<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Jacqueline A. Morris [<A HREF="mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com">mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Tue 8/12/2008 8:27 AM<BR>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake<BR>
Cc: Parminder<BR>
Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad<BR>
<BR>
I agree<BR>
Jacqueline<BR>
Adam Peake wrote:<BR>
> Parminder,<BR>
><BR>
> Thanks, I agree with your changes. Let's aim to get the letter out on<BR>
> the 15th.<BR>
><BR>
> Adam<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>> Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it.<BR>
>><BR>
>> I think this draft is good to take forward.<BR>
>><BR>
>> My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go<BR>
>> into the<BR>
>> synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most<BR>
>> prominently in<BR>
>> such a paper.<BR>
>><BR>
>> As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till the<BR>
>> consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, if<BR>
>> needed,<BR>
>> but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points and put in<BR>
>> clear<BR>
>> strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling<BR>
>> the<BR>
>> document as too general and such.<BR>
>><BR>
>> For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, which<BR>
>> says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making a few<BR>
>> changes<BR>
>> in the text under these points. I can take suggestions from the<BR>
>> members for<BR>
>> the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough<BR>
>> consensus.<BR>
>><BR>
>> As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to<BR>
>> be able<BR>
>> to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough<BR>
>> consensus.<BR>
>><BR>
>> (suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the caveat<BR>
>> above)<BR>
>><BR>
>> Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper<BR>
>><BR>
>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the<BR>
>> letter<BR>
>> sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a<BR>
>> core<BR>
>> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain a<BR>
>> central theme of the IGF process.<BR>
>><BR>
>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that this<BR>
>> session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other main<BR>
>> session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda,<BR>
>><BR>
>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability<BR>
>> of the<BR>
>> continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum<BR>
>> participants,<BR>
>> within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN<BR>
>> Membership in this regard."<BR>
>><BR>
>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins<BR>
>> promptly, and<BR>
>> in a duly open and participative manner.<BR>
>><BR>
>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on<BR>
>> "The<BR>
>> role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another<BR>
>> with the<BR>
>> same title at IGF, Hyderabad,<BR>
>> <<A HREF="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71">http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71</A>> and<BR>
>> we would<BR>
>> be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the<BR>
>> organizing<BR>
>> of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward<BR>
>> session, in<BR>
>> the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being<BR>
>> done in<BR>
>> collaboration with some workshop organizers. We would be pleased to<BR>
>> work<BR>
>> with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the<BR>
>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF.<BR>
>><BR>
>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and<BR>
>> setting-up<BR>
>> the working groups that are to develop the main session workshops has<BR>
>> been<BR>
>> very unclear. How were some workshops accepted in these working<BR>
>> groups and<BR>
>> some not? What efforts have been made to ensure that a balanced<BR>
>> representation of views is present in each of the working groups<BR>
>> organizing<BR>
>> the main session workshops?<BR>
>><BR>
>> The caucus believes this process needs to be improved and made more<BR>
>> transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be<BR>
>> assured<BR>
>> that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal<BR>
>> opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main<BR>
>> session<BR>
>> workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.)<BR>
>><BR>
>> (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been<BR>
>> identified as<BR>
>> a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this<BR>
>> issue is<BR>
>> not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know<BR>
>> about the<BR>
>> funding support available for participation of civil society from<BR>
>> developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be<BR>
>> too<BR>
>> late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that<BR>
>> immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Thank you,<BR>
>><BR>
>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>
>>> From: Adam Peake [<A HREF="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp</A>]<BR>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM<BR>
>>> To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
>>> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad<BR>
>>> programme<BR>
>>> paper.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Just say yes or no.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get<BR>
>>> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to<BR>
>>> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and<BR>
>>> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.)<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have<BR>
>>> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Adam<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the<BR>
>>> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core<BR>
>>> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain<BR>
>>> a central theme of the IGF process.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that<BR>
>>> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other<BR>
>>> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis<BR>
>>> Agenda,<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability<BR>
>>> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum<BR>
>>> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make<BR>
>>> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard."<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins<BR>
>>> promptly.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop<BR>
>>> "The role and mandate of the IGF"<BR>
>>> <<A HREF="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71">http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71</A>> and<BR>
>>> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion<BR>
>>> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with<BR>
>>> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the<BR>
>>> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to<BR>
>>> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward<BR>
>>> session at the Hyderabad meeting.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and<BR>
>>> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main<BR>
>>> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops<BR>
>>> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have<BR>
>>> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is<BR>
>>> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session<BR>
>>> workshops?<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like<BR>
>>> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders<BR>
>>> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups<BR>
>>> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly<BR>
>>> influencing the main session debates.)<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the<BR>
>>> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks<BR>
>>> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food<BR>
>> > and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing<BR>
>>> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this.<BR>
>>> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a<BR>
>>> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from<BR>
>>> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the<BR>
>>> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately<BR>
>>> addressed.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Thank you,<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><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">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>
>><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">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><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">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><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">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>