[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[Parminder]

Some points on Vittorio's email. 

> About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main
> session" and "plenary session",

In my understanding there is no difference. All 4 themes are being suggested
for plenary/ main sessions. 

>About 4), I think I missed what would be the purpose of that - please
advise.

This session will discuss the role and mandate for the IGF in light of the
Tunis mandate. 

> The one main session that one could try to push for (because it's really
> missing from the program, I think), is a session on cross-cutting
> issues, say 1) but also the various framework convention-type efforts,
> and perhaps also "where is the IGF going".

Framework convention kind of things can be taken up in theme 1 on public
policy in IG, and 'where is the IGF going' will be a central issue in theme
4 on IGF. 

On the 'topical issue' I have explained my understanding of it in an email I
sent a while ago....

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: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:49 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
> Cc: Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
> 
> Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> > Hello
> >
> > Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the
> > statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it
> > accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can
> > we ACT, please?
> 
> Ok, don't jump. First, we need to transform the draft in something
> coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a
> final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48
> hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be
> scheduled for, say, May 13-16.
> 
> This is something that Parminder and I can do (not having spoken with
> Parminder yet), but first I would like to clear the substance of what we
> are going to say.
> 
> As per the draft, we would be asking to:
> 
> 1) have a "plenary session" on some cross-cutting theoretical issues
> about what is or is not public policy etc.;
> 
> 2) have a "main session" on ICANN (with people suggesting either to
> broaden it to IETF/W3C/ITU etc, or not to make it so focused on specific
> details such as GAC, individual user representation etc);
> 
> 3) have a "plenary session" on access for disadvantaged people;
> 
> 4) copy and paste of para 72.
> 
> About 4), I think I missed what would be the purpose of that - please
> advise.
> 
> About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main
> session" and "plenary session", but I assume that the proposers mean a
> big session like one of the four devoted to each theme in Athens. Now,
> could the AG members please tell me whether that's a reasonable request
> to make? It doesn't look so - I mean, I guess that even if the draft
> programme is flexible, it's unlikely that more plenary sessions (apart
> from those already scheduled) can be added, specifically if on
> specialized issues as opposed to the main themes. The only timeslot I
> see theoretically available is the early one on Monday 14:00-16:00.
> 
> The one main session that one could try to push for (because it's really
> missing from the program, I think), is a session on cross-cutting
> issues, say 1) but also the various framework convention-type efforts,
> and perhaps also "where is the IGF going".
> 
> For 2) and 3), I think that reasonable suggestions would be to put these
> as one of a few main points in the main session for the related theme
> (3) is access, 2)... ok, not totally clear, but perhaps access as well?
> or security?). Alternately, propose workshops (BTW - any idea on
> workshop selection criteria?)
> 
> Or, there is a slot labelled "topical issue" which I guess is still TBD
> - can people from the AG enlighten on what it is? Should we propose
> topics for it?
> 
> Finally, given that the draft schedule came out, I guess that comments
> on it would be helpful. I can pick up what we said in February and
> extract / summarize a few practical suggestions, would that be useful?
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------

____________________________________________________________
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