<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">Hi Jeremy<br>
<br>
I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which
hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs
into the WG on IGF improvements. Both are </font><font
face="sans-serif">very distinct issues </font><font face="sans-serif">and
</font><font face="sans-serif">separately quite important . So excuse
me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF Nairobi'.<br>
<br>
I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel
that IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its
almost singular focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated
from much of the civil society outside the IG realm, which compromises
its legitimacy. <br>
<br>
In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF
improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC
decision on network neutrality. While there are some good points there,
there has been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations
disallowing pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my
earielr emails pointing to how mobile Internet in India is already
breaching NN boundaries.)<br>
<br>
This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into
the open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile
Internet. Why should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms
and rights count on one kind and are not so important on the mobile
Internet? What does this mean for developing countries where mobile is
slated to become the by far the dominant platform for Internet?<br>
<br>
I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time
ever in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the
policy framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations
between two largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon
- and then the government rubber stamped it. If this the new global
governance model we are moving towards? I keep getting this picture in
my mind of our health policy frameworks soon being written by drug
companies and health insurance companies, and maybe the large private
hospital chains, </font><font face="sans-serif">if they are big
enough, </font><font face="sans-serif">before plaint governments
rubber stamp it. That is exactly what happened in the present instance
vis a vis the new communication infrastructure of the Internet that
came with such egalitarian promises. <br>
<br>
Anyway back to the topic,<br>
<br>
The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile
Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the
real world IG would be two very different worlds. <br>
<br>
It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda
for IG'<br>
<br>
And I propose a third topic<br>
<br>
'Cross border Issues and implications of IG'<br>
<br>
CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the
programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF
improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but
otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF.
This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it
is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme
of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and
reuse. Here are relevant links:
PROGRAMME:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8</a> (Hyderabad)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5</a> (Sharm)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26</a> (Sharm)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32</a> (Sharm)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34</a> (Vilnius)
IMPROVEMENTS:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6</a> (funding, deeper discussion, WGs)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7</a> (format improvements, IGF as town-hall)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9</a> (MAG improvements)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30</a> (MAG, funding, intersessional work)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33</a> (MAG, outputs, intersessional work)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41</a> (MAG improvements, links from IGF)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45">http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45</a> (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF)
I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights
that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing
any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>