[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content

[William Drake]

Hi,

Replies to Parminder and Adam.

On 5/6/07 11:35 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> My proposal is that we collect inputs into the 4 part theme structure as per
> Bill's email enclosed here over the next three days, 7th to 9th, on 9th
> night we put the 'content' doc up for rough consensus and wait for 48 hours.
> If adopted, we submit it for 14th deadline of written inputs. If not, we put
> it for vote and if then adopted take it directly to the meeting as a spoken
> statement.

We do need to be less languid about this.  If we want anyone to read the
document, it would be best to get it posted on the IGF site prior to the two
WSIS weeks, like Friday 11th, no?  Particularly since our suggestions are
fairly orthogonal, it would be ideal for them to be on the table early
enough to get noticed and hopefully generate discussion before everyone gets
wrapped up in other matters.  We have four paragraphs on proposed plenary
topics that have been floating around on the list for a couple weeks.  In
that time there've been a few suggestions on minor language tweaks that
could be incorporated but that's it, so it's not obvious we need to wait
three more days before a consensus call.  If you and Vittorio could draft a
brief lead-in paragraph with the usual thank yous for the opportunity to
weigh in etc and saying we suggest the following plenary topics and send
this back as an integrated doc, we could start the consensus call ASAP and
voting soon thereafter if necessary, which I suspect it would be.
 
> I will try and propose an intro para or two for thematic or content
> submission which will make the point (in the spirit of our submission of
> themes) that IGF 2 needs to be different than IGF 1 in terms of its
> substantive content, and that it should address real issues that most
> concern people today in the IG realm, and in the language that they are
> mostly formulated in public spaces. And that this will enable it to fulfill
> its mandate under p72 much better. If anyone will like to draft this intro
> paras for 'content' submission, please do.

I would suggest skipping this.  Probably someone will consider such a text
to be too negative in tone and debating it will slow the process down even
further.  It's pretty obvious anyway from the four topics that a different
thrust is being proposed.

On 5/5/07 8:27 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> I think the statement must also say what we do
> support -- what parts of the proposed program are
> we pleased to see (attempt to make a more
> coherent agenda, while still allowing open
> workshops and general "open call", better
> suggestions about duration of sessions?
> Multi-stakeholder principles reinforced.  etc.)

Presumably P & V could fit that into the lead in para in one or two
sentences.

> Do we agree with the basic "Basic Meeting
> Structure" (section 2 of the draft program).  Do
> we have anything to say about dynamic coalitions?

Yes with regard to shorter sessions with fewer panelists and links to
workshops et al.  But the problem remains squaring the circle between the
topics we're proposing and the established thematic structure of plenary
sessions on access, openness, security and diversity.  Ok, our third is on
access, but public policies, ICANN, and the IGF mandate don't really fit
under the three other rubrics, which is part of why I expressed doubts
they'd be taken on board.  mAG would have to buy into losing at least one of
the three projected sessions on each of the Athens themes.  But as people
have said, let's put it out there and see and see if persuasion is possible.

> ICANN should not be the focus, too narrow a
> subject for a main session. The only people who
> care about individual participation in ICANN are
> a few of us on this list and a hand full of
> others.  It will be dismissed as "enhance
> cooperation", it's  gift for anyone who wants to
> make sure "critical Internet resources" are not
> discussed.  Would be naive to propose in this way.

> If you want to make sure "critical Internet
> resources" is buried, this is the way to do it.

If saying the I-word is taboo in this open and inclusive forum on IG (!),
what would you propose for this session, language?  If we just say core
resources without touching the third rail, it might require tweaks to avoid
any nominal overlap with the global public policy bit.
 
> Suggest quoting the whole of 72 a in (1) of our statement.

Make sense.

Cheers,

BD



  


____________________________________________________________
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