[OCDC] Re: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Wed Nov 28 04:05:37 EST 2007 

At 1:50 AM -0500 11/28/07, linda misek-falkoff wrote:
>This thread is quite enlightening, as to focus and otherwise.
>


Yes -- and thanks for the comments so far!


>Query: what issues would properly be brought 
>before an (Intl.) Internet (not ITC) Governance 
>Court?  (Over what issues would it have 
>jurisdiction).
>


Is the thought I had after reading Max, Milton 
and Alejandro:  what do we mean by Internet 
governance, and how does it differ from IT4D and 
themes that would be better discussed at GAID 
<http://www.un-gaid.org/>

Any description needs to be easy to grasp so 
people can submit proposals for workshops 
appropriately, so sessions can be designed, 
speakers instructed etc.  (I don't find the WGIG 
definition much help in this.)  What should a 
general call for proposals for workshops and 
description of the 2008 IGF say in this regard? 
Thoughts?

Thanks,

Adam


(I've trimmed the to list back to the governance 
list, I can post to the other.)



>
>Thanking you, and best wishes, LDMF.
>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
>*Respectful Interfaces* 
>
>
>On 11/28/07, Rose Gill 
><<mailto:pdorganisation at yahoo.com>pdorganisation at yahoo.com> 
>wrote:
>
>Greetings Max and all!
>
>I would totally agree with friends who are more 
>towards result-oriented activities and plans for 
>the future. IGF, in my opinion can 
>be the ultimate platform for influencing the 
>international policies and can be a good 
>influence for countries that are still not part 
>of the process.
>There was no way of ensuring as to what extent 
>representatives of governments were attending 
>the event particularly from developing countries.
>
>The generalised approach of some of the speakers 
>was also very much evident in different sessions 
>as pointed out by Max. There should be more 
>concrete criteria for the selection of the 
>panelists and the selction of the sub-themes so 
>that the speakers give deeper insight on the 
>topics in order to lead to a more focused and 
>productive debate on the IG issues.
>
>The thing that I strongly felt lacking was the 
>contribution towards the future of IG and how it 
>is going to shape up. There must have been 
>collective results/suggestions from each 
>workshop and on the last day, a seperate session 
>to discuss the results, new findings and 
>suggestions that are feasible/possible to 
>implement leading to discussions on possible 
>responsible stakeholders/volunteers in future 
>for the relevant task.
>
>Best wishes,
>Ms. Rose Gill
>Research Associate/Activist
>Pakistan
>
>
>Max Senges <<mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>maxsenges at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Dear Adam, and all
>
>Thank you for initiating this review and suggestion process. Some
>comments and questions:
>
>>  How can we take open call for workshops etc,
>>  and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard
>>  process.)
>
>As I raised before, the most important criteria for admittance should
>be the proven relation and focus on INTERNET GOVERNANCE. There were
>workshops on education, and access to knowledge that could have had a
>connection and could have discussed GOVERNANCE of their causes on the
>INTERNET but didn't. Panelists gave interesting but 'very general'
>talks about intellectual property etc.
>
>Another key point in making the sessions more productive is to setup a
>standardized and obligatory Report of Results, which again should be
>geared towards - What does this workshop contribute to the IG debate?
>
>In general I argue that all IGF activities - and especially DCs -
>should have RESULTS (minutes, statements, requests for comments, - a
>variety of standardized formats) and that these results are somehow
>gathered, catalouged and made available.
>One initiative were DCs can contribute and aggregate their work is the
>Internet Bill of Rights initiative, which means to develop a framework
>for defining, promoting and watching the enforcement of Human Rights
>and other Principles on the Internet.
>
>>  ...very little remote participation...
>>  ...the problem might not have been content but 
>>about announcing the content early
>  > enough so people could plan to attend.
>
>I agree 100%. The ONLINE PLATFORM and REMOTE PARTICIPATION
>possibilities of the IGF are
>
>1) too distributed - everything should be in one integrated
>environment or at least one portal
>2) online participation was almost not offered - except for individual efforts
>
>In my understanding this is a major strategic point for two reasons:
>
>Firstly it will improve participation, and esp. multi-stakeholderism
>(participation from the south) and thereby representativeness and
>legitimity.
>On a more historic perspective, the IGF is an experiment that could be
>a blueprint for global governance in other areas, so the second,
>meta-relevance of deploying excellent online info and collaboration
>tools is the IGF's pioneering role. Critiques in other thematic areas
>will righfully say: "If the Internet Governance community didn's
>manage to deploy and exploit effective online tools how should we?"
>
>There is a Dynamic Coalition on Online Collaboration which has
>provided the IGF-Community site. This groups is however not
>sufficiently integrated in the IGF structure. The the IGF online
>information environment and tools should IMHO be developed in close
>collaboration between the Secretariate, the host country and a
>multi-stakeholder service coalition.
>
>Does anyone know how and where to engage to work and push for better
>online collaboration and information environments?
>
>>  Might be possible to keep
>>  main sessions to the first and last days, with workshops in the
>>  middle and have workshops report back and discuss substantively on
>>  the final day?
>
>I like that proposal!
>
>Best,
>Max
>--------------------------------------------------------
>"I am a wanderer and mountain-climber, said he to his heart. I love not the
>plains, and it seemeth I cannot long sit still.
>
>And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience- a wandering will
>be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end 
>one experienceth only oneself."
>
>(Friedrich Nietzsche, Also spoke Zarathustra)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Max Senges
>Research Associate
>Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
>Av. Canal Olímpic s/n, Edifici B3
>08860 CASTELLDEFELS (Barcelona) SPAIN
>
>PhD Candidate
>Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC)
>Programme on the Information Society
>
>Tel:
>Spain +34-627193395
>Germany +49-17660855358
>@: <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com> maxsenges at gmail.com
>
><http://www.maxsenges.com/>www.maxsenges.com
><http://entrepreneur.jot.com/> http://entrepreneur.jot.com
><https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/>https://www.openbc.com/hp/Max_Senges/
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends 
>inside Yahoo! Mail. 
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51732/*http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/>See 
>how.
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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

More information about the Governance mailing list