[governance] IGF workshops
Carlos Afonso
ca at rits.org.br
Fri Jun 15 09:17:47 EDT 2007
Adam, please note that I am not talking about the slots within the IGF
meeting itself. This is a preparatory meeting before the IGF starts
(nov.11 is the suggested date, from 15:00 to 20:00).
fraternal regards
--c.a.
Adam Peake wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
--
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list