[governance] IGF workshops

Carlos Afonso ca at rits.org.br
Fri Jun 15 07:45:20 EDT 2007

Dear people,

I would like to recall that local organizers of the IGF process in 
Brazil have agreed to secure space and time for a forum of the dynamic 
coalitions on the 11th of November in the afternoon, so they can present 
their proposals to the public before the IGF starts. There will be also 
spaces for private meetings of the DCs. All in the same venue of the 
IGF, or at least this is what was promised to me.

Would you please reinforce the need we have here for a feedback from the 
DCs regarding this? I have got none so far (although I sent a first 
proposal to at least four of them about two months ago), I think you are 
in contact with more DCs than I am, and people will certainly listen to 
you. If the decision is not to make it or to use the space for another 
kind of activity, fine, but we need to know ASAP.

I do not even know if Nov.11 is an acceptable date for the DCs. We could 
do it on the 10th (in this case it would not conflict with the Giganet 
meeting) -- on this day there will be a full-day APC wokshop on low-cost 
connectivity, and DC people would have to be in Rio one day earlier.

Anyway, we need a feedback from the DCs (and from the caucus) as soon as 
possible on this.

fraternal regards


karen banks wrote:
> hi parminder, bill
> parminder, thanks for moving us forward on workshop proposals
>> > I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. 
>> It will
>> > serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the 
>> profile of
>> > IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these 
>> are from
>> > our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF
>> > consultations).
>> > Second, if we really want to foster dialogue on the four themes 
>> proposed,
>> > probably we ought to consider proposing workshops on each.  This 
>> could be done
>> > in addition to or instead of making a statement about the 
>> plenaries.  If it's
>> > impossible for the caucus to agree on such workshops, then varying 
>> coalitions
>> > of the willing could evolve each, perhaps with the caucus/list 
>> serving as
>> > initial facilitators.
> I think it's useful to think about the themed workshops, separately from 
> the open workshops - in some ways.
> Themed workshops will feed into the main plenaries, and (i think) will 
> be more influential in terms of framing the debates around the 4 themes 
> (at least, this is my understanding of the rationale having themed 
> worshops, prior to the same-theme main session).
> Open workshops will provide more space for addressing very specific 
> issues, issues not addressed by the sub-themes, emerging issues etc
> I'm not sure about the caucus proposing workshops for all themes - that 
> would be a lot of work, and i'm not sure is the best role for the caucus 
> - the coalitions are working on proposals, several organisations etc.. 
> and we don't want unnecssary duplication..
> but the caucus could play a useful role in
> - acting as a clearinghouse for any CS folk who want to let us know what 
> they're planning for the IGF
> - support IGC members who are organising workshops (not as caucus events)
> - develop proposals for workshops which are central to the IGC 
> objectives,  and which are difficult for others to organise 
> (poliitically, lack of capacity, outreach etc)
> - work with ca and others in brazil to prepare for the pre IGF CS event 
> - a good opportunity to prepare in general; and
> specifically for day 1: critical internet resources (there are no 
> workshops prior to this session)
> it makes good sense to develop workshops (or ideas for other inputs) 
> around the 3 agreed IGC themes - that will ensure continuity, building 
> on collective work etc - but, it's important for us to know as soon as 
> possible what the sub-themes are as they will affect the nature of 
> themed workshops proposed, and those that have to be open
> I know the CS MAG participants will let us know as soon as they can on 
> that one
> So, maybe a good first round would be to go through each of these 
> themes, discuss what type of format the issue could be best addressed in 
> (eg bill has made some suggestions for how certain themes could be 
> addressed) - i've added my own comments
>> > (1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions
>> > a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to 
>> use global
>> > institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between
>> > "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy 
>> and the
>> > "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet
>> > governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy
>> > concerns are closely linked to technical administration?
> i think this is interesting in and of itself.. and if you were really to 
> do it justice, i think it would have to be a standalone (open?) workshop 
> - they are only 90 minutes long..  i think for something like this, you 
> need a good backrgound paper.. i don't think you'd want to deal with the 
> issue purely through workshop format
>> > b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of
>> > globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated 
>> with the
>> > coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and how 
>> can this
>> > goal be pursued?
> it's hard to know what's planned for the critical internet resources 
> session - is it going to deal with in in line with (b) above? or is it 
> more likely to focus on a challenge/problem (root zone file, dns 
> ownership etc)
> but agree with bill, that we should focus energies around this issue, on 
> the critical internet resources main session.. and how we can influence 
> this
>> > (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)
> bill commented extensively on this, and even if other proposals address 
> this theme, it's broad and large enough a topic that if the IGC wanted 
> to organise a workshop on this, there'd be plenty to talk about.. it 
> would just be important to ensure there's no duplication of effort and 
> some coordination between similar workshop proposals
>> > (3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF.
>> If there were to be a caucus proposal, I would suggest it focus on 
>> this. The topic is clearly specified, non-redundant, and entirely 
>> workable, and one would think we'd be able to reach agreement on a 
>> proposal since it doesn't have to do with core resources etc.  It's 
>> also something the caucus has been raising for a long while---in fact, 
>> for some of us, since before
>> the WGIG---so Cs has already put down markers on it and can make a 
>> distinct contribution.  I'd be willing to collaborate with others on 
>> this if there's interest.
> i think this is interesting.. and forward looking, which we need..
> several contributors commented, usefully in the main i think, during 
> consultations on concrete ways the IGF could address more elements of 
> it's mandate.. including apc's contribution
> karen
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 14/6/2007 12:44


Carlos A. Afonso
Rio       Brazil
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br

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:

More information about the Governance mailing list