[governance] Workshops for Rio

Sat Jun 2 03:02:06 EDT 2007

Adam wrote
> I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate
> discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop
> proposals.

We did discuss in the run up to the Geneva consultations that if our theme
proposals for main sessions are not accepted we should consider sponsored
workshops on these issues.

And since 3 of the 4 themes we suggested are not on the list of main session
themes, we should propose them for workshops sponsored by the IGC. Apart
from getting what we in any case wanted to discuss into the IGF space, such
IGC sponsored workshops, which are well thought out, gives IGC a good
profile.

So, my proposal is that we propose workshops on 

(1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions
(2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the
Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG
(this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme)
(3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF

We can seek other partners for these workshops, which I understand we need
to do to comply with the criterion for selection of workshops. 

Other proposals for IGC sponsored workshops can also be considered. 

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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: wcurrie at apc.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)
> 
> At 10:50 PM +0000 5/31/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >
> >
> >What is to be done about this state of affairs? The IGC is
> >distracted with the debate about a bureau when it should more
> >properly be discussing the programme:
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more.  We are wasting time and opportunities.
> 
> Very frustrating that the caucus again seems to be starting another
> couple of weeks obsessing about process, at a time when substance is
> needed.
> 
> We are less than 6 months away from the Rio IGF.  There is no agenda.
> There are no speakers.  There is a call for workshops, but we do not
> know on what subjects.  We have been told some workshops will be
> linked to the main sessions, but we don't know the topics of these
> linked "sub-theme" workshops.
> 
> Civil society is good at substance, ideas for the main sessions (we
> should accept Access, Security, Openness, Diversity and Critical
> Internet Resources will be there, and there will be some kind of
> "best" practises sub-session, and emerging issues), speakers, ideas
> for workshops, these are things we do well.
> 
> On process we are terrible. We need to remember Civil Society was the
> one who wanted the IGF.  Other stakeholders took it as a compromise,
> IGF was acceptable to them because it kept "bad" things from
> happening. They aren't going to move where want on process.  Our
> egalitarian vision isn't really shared.
> 
> And Athens worked out OK. Any workshop on any topic, a pretty civil
> society friendly (issue-wise) set of main sessions (go back and look
> at Openness in particular, btw <igf-greece2006.org> is now being
> parked. IG in action.) Some dynamic coalitions: not the working
> groups we asked for, but potential ongoing process linked to the IGF
> itself. Seems a good start to work with, not a bad given where we
> were at the end of the Tunis Summit.
> 
> I don't think we'll get the list of issue from the IGF mandate
> discussed in the main sessions, but no reason not to put in workshop
> proposals. Make sure we find multi-stakeholder partners.   These are
> 200-300 person meeting rooms.  Quite large.  And free (no fee.)
> 
> No idea if there will be workshops linked to Critical Internet
> Resources, but no reason not to start preparing workshops (DNSSEC
> anyone?)
> 
> 
> >if critical internet resources are to be discussed, what exactly
> >should be discussed and how? If there is a desire for some sort of
> >outcome, what is really feasible? Are Wolfgang's  'messages from the
> >IGF' the way to go? If so how would that work in practice. What
> >other issues are there which could be matched with specific
> >provisions of paragraph 72 that could lead to some sort of outcome
> >that could be contained in a 'message'?
> 
> 
> What's wrong with just better reporting.  Can giganet provide
> rapporteurs?  They won't be UN Rapporteurs (and should probably not
> use the term) but better reporting of what happened, and find ways to
> encourage more dynamic coalitions.
> 
> 
> >I propose we adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN
> >SG outlining it cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should  move on
> >to consider the substantive issues and how we might engage with
> >Brazil (and probably South Africa and India) about the shortcomings
> >of their strategy and the need to distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy
> >war with the US, with  Canada and perhaps other OECD countries as
> >potential allies and with the IGF secretariat about issues of
> >substance. We could write formal letters to the governments we think
> >we should engage. We could propose that Brazil appoint a civil
> >society liasion for the Rio iGF  asap. And we should communicate
> >formally with BASIS on these issues includng Bertrand's proposal.. A
> >communication with ICANN may also be worthwhile on the issue of how
> >to address the critical internet resource issue in a reasonable
> >manner.
> 
> 
> I would turn this around.  If we are going to make a proposal on
> process, begin by working with the other stakeholders.
> Multi-stakeholder, so be multi-stakeholder.
> 
> Bertrand, can you sell your ideas to the other governments? At least
> to the EU governments?  If not, we'll be wasting our time sending
> anything to the Secretary General.  We might even do ourselves harm
> by identifying problems and finding the solution the Secretary
> General proposes isn't what we asked for.
> 
> 
> >There is only a month to get this together and given how long the
> >IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste.
> 
> 
> Agree.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 

____________________________________________________________
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