[governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

[Parminder]

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

However the discussion whether this is the set of workshops we will sponsor
or if there will be a change I the list remains open, and may be discussed.
The 4 themes that IGC had proposed for IGF Hyderabad during the Feb
consultations are as follows. 


1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is
the Status of It

2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet

3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance

4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance

Those who had proposed these themes may also want to build a mass around
them to develop them into workshop proposals. 


Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:49 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> 
> .  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


____________________________________________________________
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