[governance] points discussed on the Feb 12th meeting of the Advisory group

[Qusai Al-Shatti]

Hi all:

These are some of the points that were discussed during the IGF advisory group meeting that took place on February 12 prior to the open consultation:

- There was a general consent that the Athens meeting was a success in terms of level of participation, substance and organization. The Advisory group members all thanked the government of Greece for organizing the event.

- There was a general agreement that the plenary sessions were too long and should be shorter in time for the next IGF meetings. This will help in avoiding long ineffective discussions, would make it more concise and focused, and would allow the participants to attend some of the workshops.

- There were also some comments on the number of speakers at the plenary sessions regarding the noticeable difference in their numbers and the fact that some plenary sessions had a big number of speakers. There was a general consent that their numbers should be consistent for the next meetings and that some of them should talk about best practices and national experience.

- There was a general concern that some of the stakeholders were noticeably absent or did actively participate in the dialogue (mainly governments). Since the IGF is a place of dialogue for all stakeholders, it is expected that all of them should be involved in active dialogue (this point was mentioned in Jeanette Hoffman’s statement at the final session of IGF meeting in Athens).

- There was a general agreement on the importance of remote participation that would allow the biggest number of people to follow and contribute to the policy dialogue especially from developing countries. There was a discussion on having a more effective and stable setup and what types remote service that can be available (Streaming, text based, Multimedia). Nitin Desai made a good suggestion in having companies like Skype to handle remote participation as a contribution to the IGF.

- The Advisory group supported the continuation of the main themes into the next meeting but with a clearer sub-topics under each theme. There was a concern on how effective was the emerging issues plenary and that it should be restructured in order to be more useful. There was a general agreement that the plenary sessions and the workshops should be more focused on the IG issues and not to mix ICT development issues with IG issues. A member from Brazil wanted to add cybercrime and cyber terrorism as subtopics under the security theme. It was also suggested that the Issue of national IG should be discussed in the next meeting. Nitin Desai suggested that the “setting the scene” theme should transformed into what progress was made in the Internet related to IG issues since the last IGF meeting. This suggestion was supported by most the advisory group members. A representative from Russia suggested that the International Internet Resources management should be also discussed as 
 a!
!
 main issue in the Rio meeting.

- There was a general agreement and emphasis on the important role of the Dynamic Coalitions in making the IGF meetings successful whether it is in contributing to the plenary sessions, organizing workshops, initiating thematic meetings or encouraging active participation of all stakeholders. It was praised that the Dynamic Coalitions became multi-stakeholders bodies. There was a discussion on from where the term dynamic coalitions came, however the advisory group members expressed there support of the term and find it suitable for the IGF activities.

- A representative from Brazil made a presentation on the location of next IGF meeting in Rio which looked a nice place and can handle the expected big number of attendees.

- As stated in the synthesis paper, Nitin Desai mentioned that the mandate of the advisory group has ended and that he will submit a report to the UN secretary general on the IGF and advisory group activities. It will be up to the UN secretary general to make a decision on this matter.

Regards,
Qusai Al-Shatti

____________________________________________________________
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