[governance] Programme outline and schedule released

[Adam Peake]

Jeremy, Bill:

thanks for spotting the draft programme outline and schedule were 
online -- I had an old page stuck in cache and didn't see them.

Draft program description 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/DraftProgramme.30.04.2007.rtf>
Draft schedule <http://www.intgovforum.org/Draft_Rio_Schedual.html>

Most important to note these words describing these two drafts:

"The documents aim to provide an input into the open round of 
consultations on 23 May 2007 to discuss programme and agenda for the 
second meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janeiro.  The programme outline 
will be revised in light of comments received. Comments submitted to 
the IGF Secretariat (igf at unog.ch) or posted in our online discussion 
section by 17 May 2007 will be reflected in a revised version."

It will be revised.  Had we got comments in earlier, perhaps we'd 
have less to complain about now.

A couple of points.

1.  Does the caucus wish to see "Internet resource management" as a 
theme for a main session?

Unless someone can suggest why such issues are not appropriate as 
core elements of the IGF agenda, I suggest the caucus sends email as 
soon is reasonable to the IGF Secretariat saying something to the 
effect that "core Internet resources should be discussed as a main 
session".  Just send the email now.  It does not need to be 
embellished if there is general agreement that such discussion is 
essential.  Other recommendations can be made later.  Don't make it 
complicated, if we agree these issues need to be on the agenda, send 
email within a few days saying so.

Don't waste months as we did trying to get a simple questions out 
about enhanced cooperation.


2. Bill don't give up on what are good ideas.  In February, the caucus wrote:

"For example, Comments F and I required the IGF to discuss the good
principles of Internet governance as agreed in Tunis and how to fully
implement them inside all existing governance processes, including how
to facilitate participation by disadvantaged stakeholders such as
developing countries, civil society, and individual users."

Para 72 remains the mandate of the the IGF.  Seems agreement of a 
simple statement about these issues should not be hard to produce. 
Simple language.  Might slightly harder to draft than a comment on 
the need for discussion about "core resources" but not hard.  Once a 
recommendation is agreed, let's send it.  We're wasting time.

Perhaps request they be part of emerging issues (30 minutes, with 
associated sub-theme workshops?)  Don't limit comments for workshops 
to the 4 main themes (that's a good suggestion: we propose sub-theme 
workshops for each main theme), what should be discussed in emerging 
issues?  And  a "Topical Issue"  in Internet Governance, what might 
that be?  There are a bunch of them here 
<http://internetgovernance.org/events.html#Symposium_051707> (see 
also the email Brenden sent to the list earlier, item 8 in the 
newsletter), but if we don't propose them we'll probably see it 
develop as a session discussing more access related issues.

Thanks,

Adam



At 8:07 AM +0200 5/1/07, William Drake wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The focus is once again on issues rather than institutions, challenges and
>priorities generally rather than actual IG mechanisms and practices
>specifically.  So, for example, the session on Access reads like an Enabling
>Environment discussion of the need for flexible, pro-innovation national
>policies to tackle digital divides, rather than of internationally
>applicable shared rule systems, or the lack thereof in some dimensions, that
>impact access.  The same goes for the other themes.  International
>frameworks (public and private sector) may get mentioned as part of a
>broader mix, but there will not be a focused debate on what are the
>applicable IG mechanisms, how well do they work, how might they be improved,
>how do they hang together and what sort of ordering do they create
>collectively, etc.  Which is not to say that the proposed topics are not
>interesting and important, or that we won't all have a good time in Rio.
>It's just not about IG as defined and debated in WSIS, or the IGF mandate as
>proposed by WGIG and evolved in Tunis.
>
>I don't recall for sure but think it was Vint Cerf who suggested that we
>ought to change the name of the IGF to Internet Facilitation Forum or some
>such thing.  I remember thinking at the time, here's yet another effort to
>take governance off the table.  But now I'm warming to the idea, since it
>generally makes sense to have some correspondence between categories and
>meaning.  Why say you're doing x when you're really doing y?  If x is just
>too 'controversial' and 'sensitive' for the parties to agree to even discuss
>in a public setting, pretending otherwise just dilutes the conception of x
>confuses things in a way that impedes coherent discussion elsewhere.  It
>feels like we're moving back to the status quo ante-WSIS.
>
>Anyway, this would seem to have two practical consequences.  First, given
>the way that the program is specified in the 6th section on Content, I don't
>see how any of the themes we've discussed proposing could be accommodated in
>the main sessions.  All four themes are probably too orthogonal no matter
>how we wordsmith their descriptions.  So the choices would seem to be a)
>abandon the effort, b) adapt the proposal to reality, or c) frame it in a
>sort of "we would have liked to have had plenary discussions on the
>following but see this won't be happening' sort of manner, which I imagine
>some would say is too negative etc.  Moreover, given the diversity of views
>now reflected in the caucus, I suspect that to approve language we'd have to
>use the voting mechanism.  Since the consultation's in just a couple of
>weeks and these things would take time, I would suggest that there's no more
>room for languid discussion involving only a handful of people, and that our
>co-chairs would need to take the temperature and actively drive the process,
>now, if it seems that there's sufficient interest to try something.
>
>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.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bill
>
>On 5/1/07 1:48 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote:
>
>>  For those who haven't seen them, the IGF Secretariat has just released a
>>  draft programme outline and schedule for the Rio meeting which are
>>  linked from its Web site at http://www.intgovforum.org.
>>
>>  As we might have expected, they do not provide any plenary sessions for
>>  the discussion of the IGF's role, Internet resource management, or
>>  future Internet governance arrangements.  And rather than reducing the
>>  overlap between sessions, there is now more overlap; with between six
>>  and seven concurrent streams.  These include a new session for meetings
>>  of dynamic coalitions, and a new "open forum/best practices forum".
>>
>>  I don't think that I have said so yet, but I am happy with Parminder's
>>  suggestions for input into the May consultations, as amended in the
>>  light of others' comments, and would hope that consensus can be reached
>>  on it before 17 May so that it can be reflected in the synthesis paper
>>  rather than only being presented verbally.
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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