<div>Thanks Parminder for this feedback. So, I about two issues mentioned , I think this option is also avalaible.But about the term "internet rights", since we use this term I was in confusion and if we say like you suggest "Internet and Rights", it's clear in mind.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Baudouin<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2009/3/1 Parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi All,<br><br>I do not have my notes with me and may add more points later, but thought will share some impressions from IGF open consultations and MAG meeting right away. Other who attended may add their comments. <br>
<br>Review of IGF Hyderabad indicated a strong desire among the participants that the IGF should now move on from being an IGF 101, or a IGF for dummies, and deal with more clearly substantive issues, with some possibilities of moving forward on them. This directly connects to the sentiment that was prevalent in the closing session of IGF Hyderabad. it appears that there is general agreement to take some issues that have greater level of agreement to 'round tables' for possible recommendation making. Two issues that seem to be headed in this direction are (1) child protection and (2) disability related access issues (these were mentioned in the open consultation but the proposal was developed further in the MAG meeting). However the final decision on either the round table format or the issues to be taken up has not been taken, and this will decided by the re-constituted MAG in May. However, it is this new format that mostly likely will mark the next IGF meeting. <br>
<br>On the WSIS mandated review of the IGF process, my impression is that it appears increasingly unlikely that there will be an external evaluation. It seems to be mentioned less and less. However there is no decision on this, and this is only my impression. Others may contribute theirs. The meeting of IGC members during the lunch on Tuesday seemed in favour of seeking an quantitative analysis of the IGF meetings on various parametres of participation, impact/ output etc, and we can further develop this proposal. <br>
<br>Within the MAG, while there seemed to be an early willingness to move forward in a spirit of favoring open discussion on, what some may consider as, contentious topics, midway, on the second day, brakes seemed to got applied, and the meeting fell into a very polarized debate on whether 'internationalization of IG (or CIR management) was a fit theme to discuss. This debate seemed to negate much progress on the next meeting's structure and agenda not only on this theme but also on others. The first draft of the program paper should be soon out, and it is important to watch out for it.<br>
<br>Meanwhile, the three statements developed by the IGC were read out in the open consultations. The proposal to make 'internet rights and principles' as the overall theme for the next IGF received support from many civil society participants. Reps from at least two governments - Swiss and El Salvador - also supported this theme. This is encouraging. However no rep from the technical community and the private sector expressed support. We may need them to support this proposal. During the MAG however some state reps were not too keen on making the above as the overall theme. There was also a specific objection to using the term 'internet rights' which may look like meaning there was a new and accepted category of rights. I have now, on the MAG email list, proposed that we may use the term 'internet and rights' or 'an rights based approach to IG' to address the above objection. However, we need to canvass more support with gov reps that may be helpful, and also seek the support of technical community and the private sector. If we cannot get this as the overall theme, we should at least seek a main session discussion on it. <br>
<br>I also proposed 'Network Neutrality' or 'principles of an open architecture of the Internet'. There was some support but the discussion did not go far. we may need to again take it up in May. There was a lot of discussion around privacy issues and how they should be framed for a discussion at the next IGF. <br>
<br>I also proposed that in light of broadband investments becoming a key part of many a 'stimulus packages' in many countries of the North, this issue and its overall ramifications and significance for how we may look at broadband more and more as a key social infrastructure, and investments into it from the lens of 'social overhead capital' , should be taken up as a key 'access' issue at the IGF. I found some key members supporting this idea, and I think it is an interesting one to explore further. <br>
<br>Thanks<br><br>Parminder <br><br><br><br><br></font></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN<br>COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC<br>COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE<br>MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE<br>téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91<br>
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571<br><a href="mailto:email%3Ab.schombe@gmail.com">email:b.schombe@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://akimambo.unblog.fr">http://akimambo.unblog.fr</a><br><br>