[governance] workshop deadline: April 30

[Parminder]

Bill

> 
> 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.  

I myself want a tiered strategy. 2-3 workshops proposed by the IGC -
main-and-proper, and a few others taken up by some IGC members which IGC
agrees to co-sponsor. 

> I agree the IGC should do the Role and Mandate of the IGF again, last
> year's
> session having been constructive and well received.  

Yes.

> (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?)

Thanks. Pl write and we will put up on the list for 2 days or so, and then
send it to the secretariat. Since it is a factual report there shouldn't be
much comment on it, which could affect the report.. ..

> 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....?

Yes, I support these two.

> 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. 

That s the idea. 

 Presumably,
> ICT4C, IGP, APC, et al will want to pick up some of these themes.  

Positive. Just correcting my org's name as ITfC or ITFC. Thanks. (we don't
use 4, actually we don't even use ICT4D, we use ICTD)

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.

Yes. Needs some of the members to take lead on some issues.

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:18 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: {Spam?} RE: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30
> 
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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