[governance] IGF workshops

Wed Apr 30 04:45:56 EDT 2008

hi parminder

I think you should submit the prposals (as summarised below, with the 
noted exception re the IGP led proposal)

if you're going to be late, i'd suggest you send the secretariat a 
note to that effect.. i'm sure they'll understand

karen

At 03:27 30/04/2008, you wrote:
>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 J
>
>
>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
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080430/bdb742db/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