[governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper.

[Milton L Mueller]

I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence
about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly.

Old language: 
> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF 
> begins promptly.

Proposed change:

It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF
participants begins promptly.

Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by
some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with
the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum? 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad 
> programme paper.
> 
> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper.
> 
> Just say yes or no.
> 
> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get 
> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to 
> influence the process.  Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and 
> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.)
> 
> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have 
> our coordinator's support.  He can decide on rough consensus or not.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> (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.)
> 
> (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.
> 
> (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.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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