[governance] IGF workshops

Tue Apr 29 02:26:58 EDT 2008

Hi Michael,

I understand that with working groups having gone through a process and with
little time left on the clock, substantive comments might seem a little
late.  Needless to say, we should have started each step earlier.
But I would disagree that substantive comments are beside the point, as they
pertain to whether and how strongly people support the various proposals, as
well as to the strategic point you raise (substance is packaging here).

Anyway, irrespective of any qualms about this or that bit of packaging, I
vote yes to all.

A couple points:

*The 30 April submissions being preliminary place holders, the descriptive
texts can continue to evolve as the answers to the other questions are
filled in.  As such, hopefully substantive comments made whenever will at
least be considered as the proposals move toward finalization.

It would help if our MAG folk could let us know when they do when the MAG
will actually begin to review submissions, as this could affect when people
do their revisions.  And probably it would make sense to notify MAG reps or
the secretariat when changes are made to ensure MAG doesn't start making
decisions based on outdated version submitted earlier.

*The issue's been raised as to who actually makes the submissions.  I would
think the convener of each working group should do it, to make the process
of revision easier.  There's no reason to add the extra step of forwarding
each change to Parminder and expecting him to do it.

*I would again suggest that the wg conveners clip out the process notes
before the initial submissions.

On this,

On 4/29/08 8:10 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Question 9 is a bit confusing, asking which of
> the five themes the proposal falls under and not
> completely consistent with the draft program that
> came out of the last MAG meeting.  So try to list
> under the five themes, and add whatever
> additional theme (emerging issues, way forward,
> development, capacity building etc.), as a
> comment added to the text description.

Why can't this get fixed on the web form, rather than asking people to
contort to fit the wrong categories?  And maybe clean up the other odd bits
in the questions? 

Cheers,

Bill

On 4/29/08 2:16 AM, "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> With all repect, at this point two days before the deadline and after (for
> example the Rights Workshop) discussion has gone on for a couple of weeks
> with several invitations to involvment it is really beside the point to
> present substantive issues. Nothing useful can be done about with these
> comments at this this point without re-opening sometimes fairly complex
> consensus (satisficing) processes.
> 
> I would have thought that the only useful contributions at this stage would
> be strategic i.e. whether or how to package the proposal from the
> perspective of getting it accepted...
> 
> Looking forward the substantive issues presumably will (or should) be
> covered first in the selection of WS participants and then in the discussion
> itself.
> 
> MG
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: April 28, 2008 4:47 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops
> 
> 
> Hi Parminder and all,
> 
> Le 28 avr. 08 à 18:21, Parminder a écrit :
>> 
>> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that
>> IGC proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>> 
>> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> 
> I obviously support this one as an IGC workshop, since I'm in the
> working group preparing it. It's more than time for this essential IG
> issue to be put on IGF table.
> 
>> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> 
> I also support this one, as co-sponsored by IGC. Like the above
> workshop, it raises an issue which is at the heart of IG. I regret
> that its focus hasn't been extended beyond ICANN (as I proposed in a
> previous mail), but the IGC failed to bring the necessary inputs,
> so.. Milton mentioned that he has one volunteer from this list: if
> this person is supposed to speak as an IGC representative, we should
> discuss this. If as an individual/individual org representative, fine.
> 
>> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
> I'm pretty embarassed here. I strongly support the idea of advancing
> the issue of a 'right to access the Internet' (which is not
> necessarily a 'right to communicate' as it has been framed by some
> groups since the 80s) and defining what is encompassed by this right.
> But - and I'm really sorry I haven't had time to participate in the
> list discussion and to react in time - I do think the issue is not
> adequately framed here. I'm afraid that, as currently described, it
> would lead to nowhere but the old "NWICO trap", especially when
> speakers are supposed to show a diversity of perspective.
> I'm also afraid that the current description of the workshop is not
> clear at all: it's hard to understand what is the main concern,
> because there are too many references to current works related mainly
> to freedom of expression and to "mapping existing rights in the
> context of Internet" (works which, BTW, remains questionable). Very
> different concepts seem simply mixed up. Frankly, it smells like
> beating around the (old) bush.. or like ideas that still needs
> maturing before reaching the step of a coherent discussion. This is
> BTW reflected in the list of prospective panelists: seems like anyone
> could be in, while a well focused proposal would provide directions
> on who should be approached and who wouldn't bring any strong point
> in the debate.
> In summary: I don't want to oppose this workshop in the current
> consensus seeking process, mainly because I feel I haven't any right
> to do so because I haven't participated to the previous discussion.
> But, to be honest, I don't feel the proposal appropriate, as it is.
> And in terms of advocacy in favor of a 'right to access the
> Internet', I really think it would be counterproductive. But that's
> another discussion.
> 
>> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> 
> Most needed. It's the IGC trademark:)
> 
> Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________
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