<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thanks Parminder for an excellent summary.
Although I wasn’t present at the MAG part of proceedings I did hear
afterwards that it was dominated, as you say, by a debate on “internationalization
of CIR” which many found either confusing or annoying.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>On the open consultations – the only
thing I would add to was the rather interesting discussion on defining various
issues according to their level of maturity, and that the level of maturity
might help determine the format of the treatment of these issues – eg more
mature issues would be treated in different formats. I am not sure how
agreement on an issues matrix would ever be reached, but the concept was
interesting.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Also I wonder if anyone has further
thoughts on the review (or consultation, or whatever process). I agree that the
ground seemed to shift here a little – wheras the topic in the agenda was
a review, it was later pointed out that in fact no review was called for, only
a consultation with forum participants. It also became clear –
particularly after China’s comments – that the decision is for the
Secretary General and probably the UN General Assembly, which might of
course be taken with consideration to factors other than those raised by IGF.
While it was clear that the IGF Forum participants would generally favour
continuance, and that would include the parts of governments who attend IGF, other
submissions to the General Assembly may carry different observations or
recommendations and the government reps who go to GA might not even know the
people who attend IGF or their opinions on the matter.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>So this process needs careful watching as
we go forward. As we agreed at our meeting, a prime task for us over coming
months is to monitor developments in this area and react accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>One small extra addition – at our
meeting of members present, we agreed to endorse Wolfgang, Bill Drake, and the APC
representative as our representatives for the ITU Policy Forum if they are
attending. That gives us formal involvement.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Ian Peter<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on"><font size=3
color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>PO
Box</span></font></st1:Street><font color=navy><span style='color:navy'> 429</span></font></st1:address><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Bangalow NSW 2479<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><font
size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy'>Australia</span></font></st1:place></st1:country-region><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>www.ianpeter.com<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
color=black face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:windowtext;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
color:windowtext'> Parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> 01 March 2009 22:11<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">governance@lists.cpsr.org</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [governance] open
consultations and MAG meeting</span></font><font color=black><span
style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 color=black
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>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 <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">El Salvador</st1:place></st1:country-region> -
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>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>