Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options

[parminder]

On Monday 10 September 2012 03:26 AM, Ginger Paque 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.

Hi GInger,

This is the question I often posed to the IRP group - why dont we 
undertake advocacy with the IRP outcomes to try to have them included in 
some global institutional frameworks etc.... try to find avenues to 
institutionalise these rights and principles that we worked on. However, 
most key participants in that group seemed to take the view - well, we 
neednt do that, we should just have this doc out there, and anyone can 
use it as one may want to. This is  a stance I could never understand, 
especially because I do believe in collective normativities and coding 
them as and when required (human rights instruments being a good example).

So, yes, I agree, the outputs of the workshops should be employed 
effectively - not only to bring down (which may be necessary in 
some/many cases) but also to build. I must stress, the proposed workshop 
should not get derailed from its original task - which was to 'build', 
while it must also bring down what needs to be brought down - yes, I am 
talking about some problematic efforts at WCIT proceeding to contort the 
global and open character of the Internet.

Regards, parminder


>
> 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 <mailto:VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>
> Diplo Foundation
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
>
> *//*
>
>
>
> On 9 September 2012 08:41, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
> <mailto: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 - 17:45Drafting 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 - 17:45Drafting 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 <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
>     www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>     ****************************************************
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20120910/9d82fe61/attachment.htm>