[governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please

[Parminder]

> I thought Parminder's note summarizing 3 or 4 possible points of 'rough
> consensus' for the caucus to contribute to the next consultation was a
> good start, can our co-coordinators take another pass at that please and
> spell out further?

What I propose(d) is on these lines.

There seems to be a strong view in IGC (and the wider CS) that the IGF needs
to take up a more substantive role that of an annual Internet conference.
This is also in keeping with IGF's Tunis mandate, as well as IGC's pre-Tunis
views of what should IGF be.

It was probably fine (maybe also, necessary/ strategic) to play cautiously
in the first meeting of IGF for reasons that have often been discussed here.
However, if IGF repeats its format and processes in Rio, we would have lost
a vital opportunity of a new experiment in global governance, and an arena
where many unrepresented constituencies could input into IG policies. So, it
is important from both process and substantive point of view that IGF 2 is
different (as per para above).

It's my view, and many have shared it here, that both the choice of themes
(they were too broad to be meaningful) and format (journalism style) of the
plenary sessions was unsatisfactory, and yield little of substance. We will
like to suggest that we have plenary sessions that have fewer panelists, are
moderated by subject experts, and address themes that are uppermost in
people's minds in the IG arena

Four such topics were suggested

(1)   Global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, who does it and
what is it 

(2)   ICANN - the original idea, its evolution and the its role in the
emerging context 

(3)   What is it at global policy level that really impacts access to
Internet, and through it to the knowledge commons, of disadvantaged people/
groups 

(4) mandate and role of IGF (and/or application of wsis principles in extant
IG structures). 

We can work on the precise wording of these (Milton suggested some language
for 3 and Michael Gurstein has suggest some changes in 3 as well, 4 come
from Bill's suggestion, so he may want to contribute more precise langauge),
but the general idea is to have clear focused issues for discussion in
plenary sessions, proceeding from a reading of what are the issues that
people in IG arena are most concerned about, at present. 

IGF 1 was more successful in terms of on-the-side workshops, and their
outputs in form of dynamic coalitions. We may have different kinds of
comments for workshop format, selection process etc for Rio. 

We may also have additional recommendations like (picking from suggestions
which have been made on this list)IGF organizing some workshops on its own,
IGF commissioning research/ background papers on important issues, IGF
taking some initiative between its annual meetings on basis of themes,
region etc....

Inputs are welcome

Parminder 





________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:58 PM
> To: vb at bertola.eu; Adam Peake; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand
> advisory group meeting please
> 
> I thought Parminder's note summarizing 3 or 4 possible points of 'rough
> consensus' for the caucus to contribute to the next consultation was a
> good start, can our co-coordinators take another pass at that please and
> spell out further?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Lee
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> 
> >>> vb at bertola.eu 4/25/2007 11:58:19 AM >>>
> Adam Peake ha scritto:
> > Why is any of this recent stupid personal invective relevant to
> Internet
> > Governance? Can we please cut the silliness and try to think of what
> the
> > IGC would like to say at the next consultation, now a few weeks
> nearer
> > than it was last time I asked.  And many weeks nearer than when I
> > believe Jeanette and Robin first asked.
> 
> I must confess that I was traveling and I couldn't keep up with the
> flood of emails. However, we do have at least to try to work out a
> contribution for the consultation, even if I haven't seen such a strong
> 
> consensus emerging on anything more than what we said in February.
> 
> Perhaps we could do some brainstorming, i.e. anyone who has something
> to
> propose for the caucus to say could put it on the table in this thread
> 
> (some already did), and then Parminder and I can have a look at the
> result and see whether there is anything that can have reasonable
> chances to gather consensus.
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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