still important (Fwd: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important:

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Tue Aug 12 05:27:00 EDT 2008 

>


Parminder,


>Adam (and Others)
>
>  >No comments on the Hyderabad programme?
>
>If this question is for the IGC, then to reply 
>that no, we haven¹t and wont be developing any 
>comments for inclusion in the consultation 
>documents.
>


It is a question for the caucus (I've been asking 
for a while now) and also for anyone else who 
might wish to comment now. Idea is to comment on 
the programme documents, could be on substance or 
process or both.

Perhaps the CS MAG members have done a very poor 
job of communicating the importance of getting 
comments in during the public comment periods. 
By and large, IGF procedures are based around 
rolling documents, if you comment in time those 
comments will be taken into consideration. They 
will be included in synthesis papers, or revised 
versions of existing documents.  Papers submitted 
during the public comment periods also tend to be 
read by participants before the consultations 
(MAG members will often refer to such documents 
-- honestly, quite a few do prepare for meetings, 
they read the available documents.)  Miss the 
public comments and you are at a disadvantage. 
Basically always one step behind.

But let's not argue about this until the next 
opportunity (Probably be a consultation in 
February 2009.)

>However we intend to work for a statement for the consultations proper.
>


Which unfortunately will be too late to have much impact.

Why not throw a few things together now?


>I propose some issues for this, which may be taken up for discussion.
>
>1. Substantive issues
>
>(a)    Rights issues in the IGF


OK.  Endorse the Bill of Rights (and say we support it in our separate letter.)

>(b)    How will the 'taking stock and way 
>forward' session will be organized in view of 
>the start of the process of IGF review in 2009. 
>Innovative and purposeful possibilities. Is 
>there any possibility of bottom up organising of 
>this session as main session workshops are being 
>organized. In any case, to ask for  a role for 
>the IGC which did orgnaise a workshop on this 
>theme in Rio and will again do so.


Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper

(1)  The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 
fully supports the letter sent by the Internet 
Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core theme of 
the IGF".  The issue of rights and the Internet 
must remain a central theme of the IGF process.

(2) About the taking stock and way forward 
session: we suggest that this session be 
organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the 
other main session workshops and debates.  In 
light of para 76 of the Tunis Agenda,

    "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to 
examine the desirability of the continuation of 
the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum 
participants, within five years of its creation, 
and to make recommendations to the UN Membership 
in this regard."

it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly.

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is 
organizing a workshop "The role and mandate of 
the IGF" 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71> 
and we would be pleased if this workshop could 
help support discussion during the taking stock 
session.  We would be pleased to work with the 
MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to 
begin the process of review and evaluation of the 
IGF and how to best to include this important 
topic in the taking stock and way forward session 
at the Hyderabad meeting.



>(c)     Issues of rights and universalisation in access space


You won't get agreement now.  But might by September.


>(d)   others
>


Don't know so of course can't be done now.


>2. Process issues
>
>(a)    Processes involved in organizing main 
>session workshops and debated (this is the 
>biggest promise of the new format, and I also 
>have the greatest amount of concern in this 
>area). Nature of MAG WGs, how formed, what kind 
>of outside representation etc, diversity/ 
>representation in outside representation  
>(b)   Individual workshops reporting back ­ any issues?
>(c)    Dynamic coalitions ­ integration with 
>main program space, structural involvement with 
>main session workshops and debates


(3)  The process of merging individually proposed 
workshops and setting-up the working groups that 
are now developing the main session workshops has 
been very unclear.  How were some workshops 
accepted in these working groups and some not? 
What efforts have been made to ensure that a 
balanced representation of views is present in 
each of the working groups organizing the main 
session workshops?

The caucus believes this process has not worked 
well, we would like clarification of the process 
and to be assured that all stakeholders will have 
the equal opportunity to participate in the 
working groups developing the main session 
workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the 
main session debates.)




>(d)   Others
>
>3. Logistics
>


I expect will be announced.   Rumor has it all 
under control.  But add a note saying

(4) We would like to hear about logistical 
arrangements for the meetings, particularly the 
daily schedule (start, finish, breaks etc), 
information about hotels, particularly affordable 
hotels, food and refreshments, Internet cafes, 
and the IGF Village.


>4. Funding of participation of civil society, 
>especially from the developing countries. (I 
>remember that last time they said there were 
>some funds but their remained lack of clarity 
>about whether they were used, if so how, if not 
>why etc. I think we should right away write a 
>letter on this issue to the secretariat and not 
>even wait for the September consultation, which 
>may be too late).
>


(5) Will there be funds to support participants 
from developing countries and civil society? 
Could we please have details of this. We note 
that the September consultations may be too late 
to manage a smooth process for allocating funds. 
Improving participating from developing countries 
has been identified as a critical issue by the 
IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not 
being adequately addressed.


1 to 5 make a letter.  Why not just send it.    Anyone object to 1-5 above?

Adam



>Others. Pl add.
>
>Parminder
>
>
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>  > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:54 AM
>  > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  > Subject: still important (Fwd: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important:
>  > Importance: High
>  >
>  > No comments on the Hyderabad programme?
>  >
>  > Deadline is this coming Friday, August 15.
>  >
>  > Any organization or individual can send comments, all comments will
>  > be considered in the revised programme.
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  >
>  > Adam
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > >
>  > >Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:09:51 +0900
>  > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  > >Subject: IMPORTANT Fwd: [governance] important: Comments on the programme
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >Deadline for comments on the Hyderabad programme paper is August 15.
>  > >Paper:
>  > ><http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf>
>  > >
>  > >Comments received will be included in a revised document prepared
>  > >for the September consultation (September 16, and 17-18.)
>  > >
>  > >Comments should be sent to <igf at unog.ch> by August 15.
>  > >
>  > >I know many of you have concerns about the programme, please make
>  > >them known to the secretariat. These rolling documents are important
>  > >to the MAG and are read and referred to by many stakeholders in the
>  > >open consultations.  If you have comments send them either as
>  > >personal comments (individuals are recognized) or on behalf of your
>  > >organization.  Comments from the caucus would be ideal, but anyone
>  > >interested can and should make their views known. Best not to wait.
>  > >
>  > >Thanks,
>  > >
>  > >Adam
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>  > >>X-Original-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  > >>Delivered-To: lists.cpsr.org-governance at npogroups.org
>  > >>Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:58:49 +0900
>  > >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  > >>From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>  > >>X-ElectricEmbers-MailScanner-Information: Send questions or
>  > >>false-positive reports to help at electricembers.net
>  > >>Subject: [governance] important: Comments on the programme paper -
>  > deadline
>  > >>  August 15
>  > >>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>  > >>X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  > >>X-Sequence: 4724
>  > >>X-no-archive: yes
>  > >>List-Id: <governance.lists.cpsr.org>
>  > >>List-Archive: <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance>
>  > >>List-Help: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
>  > >>List-Owner: <mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org>
>  > >>List-Post: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>  > >>List-Subscribe:
>  > <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>
>  > >>List-Unsubscribe:
>  > >><mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance>
>  > >>
>  > >>Hi,
>  > >>
>  > >>Comments on the Hyderabad programme paper should be submitted by August
>  > 15.
>  > >>
>  > >>Programme is online at
>  > >><http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf
>  > >
>  > >>
>  > >>Thanks,
>  > >>
>  > >>Adam
>  > >>____________________________________________________________
>  > >>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

____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list