<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<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>
</body>
</html>