<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 03 February 2013 10:20 AM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<snip><br>
<br>
There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis a vis
the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
policy questions that it was created to contribute towards
resolution of. For tooo long it has remained caught in matters of
process and form. It is time to do what it really needed to do.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In keeping with the spirit of the recs of the WG on IGF
improvements, civil society/ IGC need to debate on what it considers
are the key public policy questions in the IG space today, and
recommend some of them to be taken up by the Baku IGF. <br>
<br>
I proposes that the following policy question be taken up at Baku,
for the cited reasons.<br>
<br>
"How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle
of the global Internet, and what the mechanisms and institutions
involved in this process?"<br>
<br>
In my estimate this is indeed 'a' if not 'the' key public policy
question in the IG space today.<br>
<br>
It was the key issue at WCIT (ETNO proposal), and indeed at the
BestBits civil society meeting, in terms of whether an ITU like
institution has a role in the Net neutrality issue, and if so how,
at what level - at the ITRs level or otherwise.<br>
<br>
Net neutrality (NN) issue indeed lies at the centre of ITU
controversy - at least for those who do not see ITU as the place to
build statist leverage for content control and over domain name
space - with the issue being whether NN like issues of
infrastructural neutrality lies in ITU's realm and by extension of
the paradigm, in the realm of respective Telecom regulators at the
national levels. <br>
<br>
In the US (and also many other countries) a fundamental, paradigm
invoking, struggle about NN and insitutional competencies of various
actors is playing out rather intensely right now...<br>
<br>
How things move in the above regard, in the next 2-3 years, will set
the basic architectural and regulatory principles about the
Internet. Whereby, this appears to be 'the' key public policy
question that must be taken up by the IGF.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<br>
parminder <br>
<font color="#000000"><font face="Courier, Courier New, monospace">
</font></font>
<p style="margin-left: 2cm; margin-right: 2cm" align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<font face="Verdana">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM,
Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Louis Pouzin <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pouzin@well.com"><pouzin@well.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><nb@bollow.ch></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Louis Pouzin <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pouzin@well.com"><pouzin@well.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">re Main sessions.
*Only two *90min main sessions.
One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
Interpretation only in english.
Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79">http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79</a>
If so, why?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes Norbert.
Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
means. Result will tell.
Workshops are more effective because:
- there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
one,
- speakers use spontaneous language,
- there are more interactions with the attendees,
- specific topics fit better with a small room,
- it's easier to identify who is there.
On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
(Chicagoan).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
that is truly taken seriously.
So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
of them.
So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
request.
What do the others think?
Greetings,
Norbert
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>