[governance] Where are we going?

[Adam Peake]

>Adam Peake wrote:
>>>Personally and very frankly, I don't feel like including .xxx to gTLD
>>>is such a big deal, and by the same token, denying .xxx is also not
>>>the most important policy issue for us.
>>
>>Agree 100%.  One of the tragedies of xxx is the amount of time 
>>wasted.  Shame it continues to distract when the next IGF 
>>consultation is about 6 weeks away.   Perhaps we can keep up our 
>>successful run on non-contributions and leave comments to a few 
>>misguided souls who want to hand the whole process back over to 
>>governments? (Bureau anyone?)
>...snip...
>>Anyway, xxx's irrelevant.
>>
>>So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation?
>
>Hear hear on xxx.  But on the IGF Consultation, really, what is 
>there to say?  I take is that the Advisory Group is continuing to 
>serve in an acting capacity pending its reappointment (or otherwise 
>- though who am I kidding) by the UN Secretary-General.  So why, 
>despite having promised during the February consultations to improve 
>its transparency, have we heard nothing more from it since then?  Is 
>it really just because nothing has been happening?
>

Pretty much, yes.  At the advisory group meeting on Feb 12, day 
before the open consultation, members were advised their mandate was 
complete and were asked to continue as volunteers until such time as 
the UN Secretary-General decided on the group's future.  So the 
Advisory Group is in limbo waiting for a decision from the SG.

So very little has happened since, there have been some informal 
discussions (no extensive debate on the AG list) and news of the Rio 
meeting place and facilities. Jeanette, Robin and I have mentioned 
some.

As you know, the February meeting was for taking stock, trying to 
understand what we'd learned and could be improved for Rio. The May 
consultation is intended to discuss substance.


>We (along with many others) have already *given* our views of what 
>changes should be made for Rio.  I don't see any point in 
>reiterating our views again into the void.


Comments mainly on procedures, and those comment have (I believe) 
been listened to (See Nitin's summing up of the open consultation.) 
But the purpose of the next meeting is substance: ideas on themes for 
sessions, how to link the main sessions and workshops. etc.


>  You ask why the IGC has a poor record of getting submissions 
>written on time?  Maybe that's one reason why.  What we need before 
>the May consultations is for a report to be made by the Advisory 
>Group and the host nation to say what use has been made of those 
>existing submissions, before we bother writing more.
>
>This is exactly the same problem that existed in Athens.  Time and 
>time again, people would make the same points; in written 
>submissions, at the consultations, in plenary sessions, in the 
>follow-up process. Time and again their views would sink into the 
>depths, never to resurface.  A number of really useful proposals 
>simply got lost in this way.  Does anyone remember the Swiss 
>Internet User Group's proposal for Internet Quality Labels?  No?


No, not particularly.  We've heard many good ideas.  Perhaps Norbert 
will propose a workshop? Or tell us about the idea on the list, see 
if it gains more support. I'd suggest approaching W3C. There might 
even be overlap (weak most likely) with some of the dynamic 
coalitions. But these and other ideas for issues to discuss in Rio 
are what the caucus should be working on now.


>  What about Geneva Net Dialogue's offer to help out with the IGF Web 
>site?  Anyone?


Not heard of this. But is obviously a matter for the secretariat.


>The big problem here is not a lack of consultation, it is in what 
>happens to that consultation.


It will be followed by a two day meeting of the advisory group where 
I expect the agenda will be mapped out, call for workshop proposals 
(speakers, papers on emerging issues etc) be decided.  Taking into 
account what was recommended at the consultation the say before.

Same pattern as last year.


>Currently, it vanishes into the ether, unacknowledged and 
>unimplemented.  No wonder people feel unempowered and become 
>apathetic.  Frankly, the May consultations might as well be 
>cancelled unless there is anything new that anyone has to say.  And 
>why would they have anything new to say, without having had any 
>feedback on the last consultations from the Secretariat, Advisory 
>Group or host nation?


The February meeting was about taking stock.  The closest anyone has 
to an outcome document is Nitin's summing up 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/Chairmans_closing%20remarks.rtf> 
Nothing can be acted on until we hear from the Secretary General.

IGF website says "The purpose of these consultations is to address 
the agenda and the programme of the Rio de Janeiro meeting." As 
others have mentioned, there was a general sense from the stocktaking 
that Athens went well.  The main themes met with no strong 
opposition, and quite bit of support.

Some suggested that the advisory group did OK, main fear was the it 
might in future insert itself too much in the design of the program. 
Some mentioned the number of workshops was about right, and 
appreciated that all proposed workshops were able to take place, this 
being important to the open and inclusive nature of the IGFF.  But at 
the same time others thought the workshops needed to be better 
integrated into the overall agenda.  Some said that there was too 
much going on at once, impossible for small delegations to follow. 
There seems to be tension here.  The advisory group either keeps its 
hand off as much as possible, or tries to more closely control the 
agenda.  Ideas on how to resolve this would be good.

I strongly favor being as open and inclusive as possible. I think we 
should follow the same process as last year with an open call for 
workshops. And a call for themes missing to date. It may be necessary 
to ask people to work together if they propose workshops on similar 
themes (some of this was done last year but not much) to try and make 
the agenda tighter.

I think we will see Access become the main theme of the Rio meeting. 
Some of the sub-themes we might consider under Access were described 
in the summary paper produced by the secretariat after Athens.  Would 
it make sense to try and build the Access session around these 
sub-themes, to invite proposals for workshops on these sub-themes. 
Using workshops to focus in on detail might be a way to deepen 
knowledge gained from the main session.

I think something similar could be done for Openness and Security 
themes (particularly drawing on the experience of dynamic coalitions.)

I mentioned before that the emerging issues session will likely be 
done again.  Question is how to improve it.  There has been a 
suggestion (informal so far) to put out a call for papers on emerging 
issues.  Ideas for what emerging issues might be would be very 
helpful, caucus should start thinking about this. A "framework 
convention" might be a good emerging issue theme.

We also need to think about the format of the sessions. They needn't 
be three hours, the interpreters will be more flexible (they could 
have been in Athens, just no one thought to ask early enough.) 
Breaking into 2 90 minute sessions could be an option. I don't know 
if they day can be re-arranged into different length blocks (e.g. a 
mix 2 hours, 90 minute, 1 hour blocks?)

Sessions in Athens all followed the same journalist led format. 
Worked OK in parts, but is it the right approach for all sessions in 
Rio?   What other formats can offer the same degree of interaction 
with the audience?

What key issues have been missed from IGF -- obvious one seems to be 
critical Internet resources.  Others?  What should we push?

The "Plaza" area in Rio should be a much better space for small 
meetings and "encounters"  Idea behind the plaza was a free space 
area where people with issues they wanted to share could have a table 
and a few chairs (not an exhibition space, that may be separate.) 
Could be space for anyone, from a group organizing a workshop and 
wanted to chat with people before/after.  An area for a dynamic 
coalition, for the ICC and BASIS, a new Amnesty petition, etc. etc. 
There might be a couple of small presentation areas with a few seats, 
lectern and projector (imagine GigaNet giving a series of 15 minute 
talks during the day, followed by the RIRs describing how addresses 
are allocated and answering questions, IGP talking about policy 
issues of DNSSEC... etc)

Do we like this idea, can we improve it?

Dynamic coalitions should be given prominence, how can we do that?

There should be more space in Rio - more and more flexible.

All I can think of for now...

Thanks,

Adam


>--
>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance