Hi, <div>Sorry for this late response. I thought I had sent this 12 hours ago, but it was not.</div><div>In any case, I do support a workshop on EC at next IGF.</div><div>But as Bill puts, I just am not sure how we can organize one under the official program since proposals are all sort of closed by now. </div>
<div>Maybe one possible way is to use the one IGC submitted and accepted on the theme of IGF improvement, or "#85 Quo vadis IGF- evolution of IGF" .</div><div><br></div><div>Yet that requires the consensus of all co-sponsors. That may be difficult and may not be the best way forward as mixing IGF improvement and EC. What do you guys think? If agree, I can ask them.</div>
<div>This is designated as Feeder Workshop, so summary of the discussion will be transmitted to</div><div>the Main session on Taking Stock and the Way Forward.</div><div><br></div><div>I also strongly support and appreciate Anritte's and APC's initiative for one day pre-event though we may have clash with other CS related meetings. <span></span></div>
<div><br></div><div>Third option is, to organize an Open Forum, I guess. It only says "<span style="color:rgb(48,48,48);font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">All major organisations dealing with Internet Governance related issues are invited to submit </span><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/104-general/789-of" style="color:rgb(51,102,102);text-decoration:none;font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">proposals for Open Forum</a><span style="color:rgb(48,48,48);font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">, using </span><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/open-fora" style="color:rgb(51,102,102);text-decoration:none;font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">this form</a><span style="color:rgb(48,48,48);font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">. The deadline for submission is </span><strong style="color:rgb(48,48,48);font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">30 June 2012</strong><span style="color:rgb(48,48,48);font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">."</span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(48,48,48);font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></div><div>Though the weight is somewhat light, we can still do within the IGF program. </div>
<div><br></div><div>izumi</div>
<div><br>2012年5月29日火曜日 Avri Doria <a href="mailto:avri@ella.com" target="_blank">avri@ella.com</a>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear MAG member,<br>
<br>
why no support for at least a workshop at IGF12?<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
On 28 May 2012, at 11:12, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
<br>
> Yes... let's do the pre-event in Baku. APC is willing to lead on this<br>
> but we are talking to others to co-convene.<br>
><br>
> And then let's get the 2013 IGF to feature various aspects of EC much<br>
> more prominently. IGF 2013 will be hosted in a developing country<br>
> (Indonesia) and it is therefore likely to have far greater developing<br>
> country government participation (at least from Asian and African<br>
> countries).<br>
><br>
> Also by then quite a lot would have happened at CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA level<br>
> (and WCIT) as well as inside some of the existing institutions. E.g. the<br>
> assessments, report cards, mapping and other suggestions made on the<br>
> 18th of May.<br>
><br>
> Anriette<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 28/05/2012 16:37, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> Personally I think we need to keep pushing for something during IGF2012.<br>
>><br>
>> Let's go into WCIT with the IGF having made room for the problem and having started the process. We have 5 months yet before the meeting, things can't possibly be set in stone at this point. We have a new MAG that was forced to accept a program they were not completely comfortable with, they are entitled to still be thinking about how to make IGF12 as valuable as they possibly can. (Not that I have the faintest idea of whether they would be interested in taking such action)<br>
>><br>
>> And whether we can get it into the IGF12 agenda, which I think its the optimal solution, or not, I think the idea that Anriette mentioned on the list earlier:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Dear Avri<br>
>>><br>
>>> We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning a<br>
>>> pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various<br>
>>> partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to<br>
>>> prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they might<br>
>>> have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of<br>
>>> the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Anriette<br>
>><br>
>> Perhaps since 71 puts the responsibility on the relevant organizations (which I take to mean the mangers of critical Internet resources) to get this underway: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders", it won't be to hard to find a set of good sponsors for such an event.<br>
>><br>
>> But to be clear. I would like to see both a full day pre-event discussion, and for that event to bring a report (dare i say recommendations?) to the IGF in a workshop arranged for discussion of EC and the IGF.<br>
>><br>
>> avri<br>
>></blockquote></div>