Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options

Sun Sep 9 20:10:56 EDT 2012

   - Hi thanks Ginger.

There is a huge need for the entire IGC to be involved, I agree.I just sent
a mail to the IGC on suggestions on improving internal coordination.

 Whilst there is diversity of views and all kinds of camps such as the:

   - anti ICANN camp
   - anti ITU camp
   - and all other anti this and anti that where people have their
   individual preference for selecting which organisation and which forum they
   will participate in.

The method in which the IGC engages has to be clearly aligned to its vision
and mission. I am certain that there are many CSOs that have developed
positions on these key areas and the combined human resources within the
IGC should not take us long to collaborate to achieve this. Areas can also
be prioritised such as the policy areas directly affected by the WCIT.

I feel that the IGC needs to work out how it is going to coordinate and
determine specific positions on specific policy cluster/areas and to
formulate clear positions. I also acknowledge that on some policy areas,
these have already been formed etc.

One the IGC position is formed, we can be bold about pushing this within
diverse forums. The Working Groups within the IGC can develop
recommendations about forms of advocacy whether they be in the form of:-

(a) Statements;
(b)Submissions;
(c) etc

We can also empower our members whoever is within the Proximity of the
various Forums to present the IGC position etc.

Best Regards

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just did the IGC survey, and it brought into sharp focus the need for
> this point made by Bill: Sala--I would LOVE to see this addressed by the
> IGC as a whole.
>
> Bill said:
> BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's
> supposed to be done with these statements.  How exactly do we see
> "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the
> respective processes, etc…
>
> I like Bill's re-ordering of the issues, so that drafting follows directly
> upon discussion.
>
> Even more, I would like the point quoted above to be given high priority.
> Why discuss, debate and draft, if the statements are not effectively used?
>
> Cheers. gp
>
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> Diplo Foundation
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> **
> **
>
>
>
> On 9 September 2012 08:41, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeremy
>>
>> Thanks for moving this forward.  Your message to the governance list
>> today prompted me to have a non-cursory second look at the draft schedule,
>> and I'm wondering if we might not want to consider others options before
>> locking in on the present version, which is:
>>
>> Day 1 - Saturday
>> 09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review
>> 11:00 - 12:45 - The ITU and the International Telecommunications
>> Regulations
>> 14:00 - 15:45 - Declarations of Internet rights and Internet governance
>> principles
>> 16:00 - 17:45 - Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public
>> policy issues
>>
>> Day 2 - Sunday
>> 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 1) - Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT
>> 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 2) - Drafting civil society IG principles for the
>> IGF
>> 14:00 - 15:00 - Streams return together, present and discuss draft texts
>> from morning
>> 15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps
>> 17:00 - 17:30 - Press conference and close
>>
>> Thoughts:
>>
>> 1.  We all have lots of experience with splitting meetings into break-out
>> drafting groups and views on its utility.  I'm in the camp that thinks that
>> in a setting like this, the costs would significantly outweigh the
>> benefits.  I strongly believe it'd much better if everyone can be in on
>> both conversations and approach all the potential outputs holistically.
>>
>> 2.  I don't think it's optimal to devote day 1 to three big topic areas
>> and then return to two of them on day 2 and try to draft texts.  I'd rather
>> keep the flow of discussion and thinking on each piece all together than
>> break it.  Moreover,
>>
>>   a. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two hours
>> talking about it?  As we all know, there is a full-day meeting organized by
>> APC, ISOC and ICC the day after Best Bits.  Enhanced cooperation will also
>> be taken up in a main session, an Euro Commission Open Forum (oddly
>> enough), etc.  So it's not clear to me what the value added of loading this
>> into an already heavy schedule would be.
>>
>>   b.  I wonder about the efficacy of trying to write something serious,
>> in a group context, from a full stop, on WCIT and IG principles in the time
>> allotted.  If all we're shooting for is a page and half of high-level
>> generalities fine, but if we're trying to actually influence governments
>> and other stakeholders it could be more demanding.
>>
>>   c.  I wonder about the need for panels and panelists.
>>
>>   d. For a two-day meeting that comes before another day of meetings
>> (enhanced cooperation, GigaNet symposium, ISOC, ministerial, etc etc) and
>> then four long days of IGF, I would suggest trying not to make this feel
>> like an endurance testing marathon.
>>
>> 3.  Hence, I would like to suggest what I believe would be an easier,
>> more focused, and ultimately more productive and enjoyable approach:
>>
>> Day 1 - Saturday
>> 09:00 - 10:45  Group review and discussion of the state of play and our
>> goals regarding global IG principles
>> 11:00 - 12:00   Organization and mapping of drafting exercise
>> 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF
>>
>>   Day 2 - Sunday
>> 09:00 - 10:45   Group review and discussion of the state of play and our
>> goals regarding WCIT
>> 11:00 - 12:00   Organization and mapping of drafting exercise
>> 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT
>>
>> Just my preference…others may have others, so how about let's discuss and
>> decide together?
>>
>> BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's
>> supposed to be done with these statements.  How exactly do we see
>> "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the
>> respective processes, etc…
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ****************************************************
>>
>>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20120910/30bf0990/attachment.htm>