[governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme

[Carlos Afonso]

Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an 
"expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum 
participants?

Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be 
neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it 
will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert" 
view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as 
well).

frt rgds

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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