{Spam?} RE: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder,

I suspect it would not be aesthetically wise for the IGC to submit too many
proposals, at least not as the lead.  Co-sponsoring alongside other
co-sponsors is probably another story.  MAGers can correct me but I'd think
it odd to ask for blessing of multiple proposals from one entity when space
is limited etc.

I agree the IGC should do the Role and Mandate of the IGF again, last year's
session having been constructive and well received.  And we wanted to make
that sort of an annual feed in to the Taking Stock and Way Forward main
session, even if the MAG decided at the 12th hour in Rio that no panelists
from the former could be on the latter and hence really bring in the points
made.  

(BTW next week I can write the Rio ws report Adam's been reminding us about.
Just a couple paragraphs, but it being a IGC event, what's the procedure,
should it be cleared through the list before submission to the secretariat?)

Second, I also think Willy's suggestion of something on jurisdictional
problems and competing sovereignty claims would be really useful, nobody's
been raising these issues much so there'd be a distinctive value-added.

Maybe we could do one more, like the public service or however you want to
frame it session....?

For other possible themes, one suspects these can be taken up by some of us
separately, with the IGC signing on as co-sponsor as desired.  Presumably,
ICT4C, IGP, APC, et al will want to pick up some of these themes.  I will
propose a ws building on my prior DA events and related, probably with some
of the same partners, maybe others, have to sort out with the Swiss and
local government delegates.  Bottom line I'm sure that all the substantive
topics we want can garner credible proposals, it's just a question of which
would be best branded as IGC lead.

Cheers,

Bill

On 3/25/08 1:50 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong proposals...
> 
> I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th March. We
> have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it.
> 
> At this stage I think we should just send the proposals in, and try to get
> co-sponsors a little later (would it not work that way, Adam and other MAG
> members?)
> 
> We saw discussions on two possible topics, in the last few weeks (pl point
> out if any other has figured, and I haven't mentioned it here)
> 
> Roughly put they are
> 
> - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG
>  
> - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet -
> Implications for IG
> 
> And we do certainly want to make our last year's workshop on 'role and
> mandate of the IGF' into an annual affair.
> 
> And as Adam suggests, the issues we proposed in Feb for main themes can be
> rehashed as IGC sponsored workshops. These are
> 
> 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is
> the Status of It
> 
> 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet
> 
> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
> 
> (detailed text as per caucus's consensus statement to Feb consultations is
> given below)
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is
> the Status of It
> 
> Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for 'enhanced cooperation' for global
> Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is
> meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute 'enhanced
> cooperation'. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and
> possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders
> in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS.  It is quite possible that such
> an open discussion pushes the process of 'enhanced cooperation' forward,
> which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some
> degree of confusion.
> 
> 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet
> 
> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the
> Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes
> the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social
> activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, but
> also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will
> examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary
> interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas.
> 
> 
> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF.
> Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio
> conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant,
> focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and
> development.  However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society
> actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other
> partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda for
> Internet Governance."  The workshop considered the options for establishing
> a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream
> development considerations into Internet governance decision making
> processes. 
> 
> Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the
> topic being pursued in the IGF.  Hence, we believe the Development Agenda
> concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this
> would be of keen interest to a great many participants there.  We also
> support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a
> multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the
> IGF on a development agenda.
> 
> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
> 
> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be
> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
> organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS
> process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess,
> on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet
> Governance processes."  Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up
> discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate.  The Internet
> Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this
> arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that
> implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting
> issue at the core of all IGF discussions.  To help kick-start that
> cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad
> concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which
> progress in implementation can be most readily
> assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation.  The session could
> consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and
> identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
  


____________________________________________________________
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