[governance] IGF workshops

Fri Jun 15 08:00:55 EDT 2007

Carlos, Hi.

This is good news.

There are 6 slots on the agenda for dynamic 
coalitions 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Draft_Rio_Schedule.html> 
(with room for more perhaps.)

The coalitions should submit room requests by 
July 31.  Their sessions will be 90 minutes. 
They will also have time to speak at the 
"reporting back" session (so people hear about 
their work, but also means it is in the official 
transcript and some people find that useful. In 
the "record" of the meeting.)

Adam

At 8:45 AM -0300 6/15/07, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>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
>
>--c.a.
>
>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:
>     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