[governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

[Parminder]

.  I
> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).

Yes, that’s the way to go. 

All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four topics. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be
> received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
> compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
> approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
> individual
> members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if
> people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
> 
> From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just
> the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
> consensus
> building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
> mention
> allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the
> two
> weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and
> around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th
> hour dash to finalize.
> 
> Few specific comments:
> 
> On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:
> 
> > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -
> to
> > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense
> to
> > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many
> > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
> title as
> > you suggested.
> 
> Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of
> time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
> having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about
> "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not
> agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent
> to
> deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion
> was
> very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing
> now
> as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
> have
> a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
> clear
> the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't
> go
> back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
> 
> >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
> >>
> >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
> >> Governance<?
> >
> > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> >
> > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
> 
> I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
> explored
> since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
> been
> done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at
> least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that
> is,
> an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast
> from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term
> means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better
> framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
> 
> >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> >> technical and private means/instruments"
> >>
> >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
> >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> >
> > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> > jurisdiction
> >
> > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because
> I
> > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet
> (and
> > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for
> > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my
> > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
> facto
> > extraterritorial effects.
> 
> Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the
> idea
> was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
> jurisdiction
> and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,
> etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also
> other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
> e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of
> unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
> jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of
> restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
> other
> architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
> industry
> or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we
> form
> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> 
> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> >> implications for IG"
> 
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> this
> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> a
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> walled off by IPR rules or what?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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