[governance] IGF workshops

Tue Apr 29 22:27:12 EDT 2008

Sorry, Bill and others who may have raised points that I may have not been
able to address. I am very busy in an ITfC organized workshop on 'ICTs in
Indian education policy' in New delhi, though I have dutifully kept an eye
on all emails to the list. 

Aslo, as you will all understand, at this point of the consensus process, I
would not like to get into too many discussions :-)

However since Bill asks for some clarification before he could say yes or no
(though I note he has said yes to all in a later email) I thought I should
clarify.

> "---so all aspects of IG to be viewed as rights issues, not just access?),
its connection to internationally agreed HR vs creating new rights, etc.  

Yes, that how it is. 

Also I will clean up the proposals to my best ability, if the consensus is
reached, in the little time I will have today before submitting, but if I
cant, I think they will let us do it in the next 2-3 days, and that MAG
wouldn't start to see the proposals immediately. I will submit three
proposals ands will ask Milton to submit the post-JPA one, that is, to
repeat, if the consensus carries. 

Best Parminder 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:56 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops

Hi Parminder,

Thanks for this.  If we could clarify something before having to say yes or
no, I'd appreciate it.

Is the idea that the IGC would be submitting only responses to the questions
that are supposed to be answered by 30 April, # 1, 2, 4 and 9?  Of are you
thinking of plugging in all the material now at hand for all nine,
irrespective of what state it's in and whether it's ready for prime time?
If it is the latter, maybe others have a different view, but I wouldn't
think it would be a procedural violation of the consensus call to simply
edit out some of the various process comments being exchanged among WG
members within these docs, like "NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means
that we should have no more than 6-7 panelists plus chair" and "it would be
good to have a government (or two) and an intergovermmental as co-sponsors -
i would propose the COE/UNESCO as possibilities - brazil, uk, australia,
others?" and "we need to work on thisk, but for sure it will if we get the
right people as speakers" and lists of people/orgs that might (or might not)
be contacted about cosponsoring/speaking...etc.  It would be odd to me
anyway to include such material in something that will be reviewed by the
MAG.   

A couple of substantive comments FWIW, which is not much I guess, given that
I've missed the deadline.

I'm still having a hard time getting my head around the precise focus of the
rights proposal ("What is lacking is a rights framework for Internet
governance that can address these issues and conflicts at each 'layer' of
the Internet environment, from the critical Internet resources of
infrastructure and code through to the content and applications that they
support"---so all aspects of IG to be viewed as rights issues, not just
access?), its connection to internationally agreed HR vs creating new
rights, etc.  

On the Fulfilling WS, I wonder how helpful it is to frame it in terms of
this binary: "Some believe  that there are elements of the IGF's mandate
that have been overlooked  or minimised in its operation to date.  Others
maintain, to the  contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching
ambitions of  those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for
discussion  into something more.?"  Some MAGites et al might read this as
suggesting that those who think elements of the mandate have been overlooked
by definition want to "transform it from a non-binding forum," which is not
representative of the range of views/options and could set off alarm bells
and bring us back to the pre-Rio worrying about this being 'controversial'
etc.  BTW, this needs to list at least one or two cosponsors, no?  Has the
WG reached out to anyone?

Best,

Bill

On 4/28/08 6:21 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

Hi all

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

2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

4. The role and mandate of the IGF

These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT. 

Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
they stand...

While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.

In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.  

Thanks

Parminder 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080430/d5c04453/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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