[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content

[Parminder]

> We do need to be less languid about this.  

Ok, Ill move the timelines some. We can have the present draft open for
comments till midnight on 7th, GMT. Then we will post the doc for consensus
by noon GMT on 8th . And it closes at noon on 10th, when, I am very hopeful
it will be adopted. If not it goes for voting... I have to check the
procedure, but I think it can be done over 3 days. We will still make it to
the synthesis doc...

Hopefully though if adopted by consensus or rough consensus on 10th we can
immediately put it out. We may do that extra outreach to send it my email to
all MAG members, and some other stakeholders, including some government
officials. 

> > 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.

Fine.

> > 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.

I will like to keep it separate. Vittorio and I will pull together
non-content stuff including responding to the secretariat doc separately,
including stuff from the feb statement. 

> > Suggest quoting the whole of 72 a in (1) of our statement.
> 
> Make sense.

No problem for me. But I will like to know the logic/ motivation behind
this. 72a reads

a)	Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
stability and development of the Internet.

But other parts of 72, as well as other parts of TA, give a broader scope to
IG related public policy issues. So, something absent in 72 a may not be
taken too seriously, as long as it is there in other parts. For instance, 72
b speaks about IGF discussing issues ' issues that do not fall within the
scope of any existing body'.


Now, you may have noticed that 72a doesn't mention 'content'. So should we
not discuss content policies. But no other subject was discussed as much as
content at IGF 1. And it doesn't mention or cover openness, or access to
knowledge.....

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: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:30 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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