[governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad

[Nyangkwe Agien Aaron]

I am very much in accord with  the admendments of the letter and the
principles of the letter. Therefore, I am signatory to it.

Aaron

On 8/12/08, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I agree
>
> Lee
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqueline A. Morris
> [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
> Sent: Tue 8/12/2008 8:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
> Cc: Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad
>
> I agree
> Jacqueline
> Adam Peake wrote:
> > Parminder,
> >
> > Thanks, I agree with your changes.  Let's aim to get the letter out on
> > the 15th.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it.
> >>
> >> I think this draft is good to take forward.
> >>
> >> My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go
> >> into the
> >> synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most
> >> prominently in
> >> such a paper.
> >>
> >> As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till the
> >> consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, if
> >> needed,
> >> but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points and put in
> >> clear
> >> strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling
> >> the
> >> document as too general and such.
> >>
> >> For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, which
> >> says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making a few
> >> changes
> >> in the text under these points. I can take suggestions from the
> >> members for
> >> the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough
> >> consensus.
> >>
> >> As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to
> >> be able
> >> to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough
> >> consensus.
> >>
> >> (suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the caveat
> >> above)
> >>
> >> Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper
> >>
> >> (1)  The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the
> >> letter
> >> sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a
> >> 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, and
> >> in  a duly open and participative manner.
> >>
> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on
> >> "The
> >> role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another
> >> with the
> >> same title at IGF, Hyderabad,
> >>
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71>
> and
> >> we would
> >> be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the
> >> organizing
> >> of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward
> >> session, in
> >> the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being
> >> done in
> >> collaboration with some workshop organizers.  We would be pleased to
> >> work
> >> with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the
> >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF.
> >>
> >> (3)  The process of merging individually proposed workshops and
> >> setting-up
> >> the working groups that are to develop 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 needs to be improved and made more
> >> transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be
> >> assured
> >> that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal
> >> opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main
> >> session
> >> workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.)
> >>
> >> (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been
> >> identified as
> >> a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this
> >> issue is
> >> not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know
> >> about the
> >> funding support available for participation of civil society  from
> >> developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be
> >> too
> >> late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that
> >> immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>  -----Original Message-----
> >>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >>>  Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM
> >>>  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."
> >>>
> >>>  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.
> >>>
> >>>  (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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad
>
> I agree
> Jacqueline
> Adam Peake wrote:
> > Parminder,
> >
> > Thanks, I agree with your changes.  Let's aim to get the letter out on
> > the 15th.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Ok, Adam, lets take a shot at it.
> >>
> >> I think this draft is good to take forward.
> >>
> >> My suggestion. Since what really matters are the portions that go
> >> into the
> >> synthesis paper, lets focus on such stuff as can figure most
> >> prominently in
> >> such a paper.
> >>
> >> As for website posting of our contribution, that remains open till the
> >> consultations. We can have such a full letter online a bit later, if
> >> needed,
> >> but for now lets choose very solid stuff on a few points and put in
> >> clear
> >> strong text that will be difficult to avoid for the persons compiling
> >> the
> >> document as too general and such.
> >>
> >> For this purpose, first of all, I will remove the logistics point, which
> >> says nothing. So lets focus on the other 4 points. I am making a few
> >> changes
> >> in the text under these points. I can take suggestions from the
> >> members for
> >> the next 24 hours. Immediately afterwards I will post the text for rough
> >> consensus.
> >>
> >> As Adam suggested please suggest only such stuff which is likely to
> >> be able
> >> to be pulled into a document that can plausibly be put for seeking rough
> >> consensus.
> >>
> >> (suggested text below - open for suggestions, but please see the caveat
> >> above)
> >>
> >> Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper
> >>
> >> (1)  The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the
> >> letter
> >> sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a
> >> 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, and
> >> in  a duly open and participative manner.
> >>
> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on
> >> "The
> >> role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another
> >> with the
> >> same title at IGF, Hyderabad,
> >>
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71>
> and
> >> we would
> >> be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the
> >> organizing
> >> of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward
> >> session, in
> >> the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being
> >> done in
> >> collaboration with some workshop organizers.  We would be pleased to
> >> work
> >> with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the
> >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF.
> >>
> >> (3)  The process of merging individually proposed workshops and
> >> setting-up
> >> the working groups that are to develop 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 needs to be improved and made more
> >> transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be
> >> assured
> >> that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal
> >> opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main
> >> session
> >> workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.)
> >>
> >> (4) Improving participating from developing countries has been
> >> identified as
> >> a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this
> >> issue is
> >> not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know
> >> about the
> >> funding support available for participation of civil society  from
> >> developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be
> >> too
> >> late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that
> >> immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>  -----Original Message-----
> >>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >>>  Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:04 PM
> >>>  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."
> >>>
> >>>  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.
> >>>
> >>>  (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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
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