[governance] open consultations and MAG meeting

[BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE]

Thanks Parminder for this feedback. So, I about two issues mentioned , I
think this option is also avalaible.But about the term "internet rights",
since we use this term I was in confusion and if we say like you suggest
"Internet and Rights", it's clear in mind.

Baudouin

2009/3/1 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

> Hi All,
>
> I do not have my notes with me and may add more points later, but thought
> will share some impressions from IGF open consultations and MAG meeting
> right away. Other who attended may add their comments.
>
> Review of IGF Hyderabad indicated a strong desire among the participants
> that the IGF should now move on from being an IGF 101, or a IGF for dummies,
> and deal with more clearly substantive issues, with some possibilities of
> moving forward on them. This directly connects to the sentiment that was
> prevalent in the closing session of IGF Hyderabad. it appears that there is
> general agreement to take some issues that have greater level of agreement
> to 'round tables' for possible recommendation making. Two issues that seem
> to be headed in this direction are (1) child protection and (2) disability
> related access issues (these were mentioned in the open consultation but the
> proposal was developed further in the MAG meeting). However the final
> decision on either the round table format or the issues to be taken up has
> not been taken, and this will decided by the re-constituted MAG in May.
> However, it is this new format that mostly likely will mark the next IGF
> meeting.
>
> On the WSIS mandated review of the IGF process, my impression is that it
> appears increasingly unlikely that there will be an external evaluation.  It
> seems to be mentioned less and less. However there is no decision on this,
> and this is only my impression. Others may contribute theirs. The meeting of
> IGC members during the lunch on Tuesday seemed in favour of seeking an
> quantitative analysis of the IGF meetings on various parametres of
> participation, impact/ output etc, and we can further develop this proposal.
>
>
> Within the MAG, while there seemed to be an early willingness to move
> forward in a spirit of favoring open discussion on, what some may consider
> as, contentious topics, midway, on the second day, brakes seemed to got
> applied, and the meeting fell into a very polarized debate on whether
> 'internationalization  of IG (or CIR management)  was a  fit theme to
> discuss. This debate seemed to negate much progress on the next meeting's
> structure and agenda not only on this theme but also on others. The first
> draft of the program paper should be soon out, and it is important to watch
> out for it.
>
> Meanwhile, the three statements developed by the IGC were read out in the
> open consultations. The proposal to make 'internet rights and principles' as
> the overall theme for the next IGF received support from many civil society
> participants. Reps from at least two governments  - Swiss and El Salvador -
> also supported this theme. This is encouraging. However no rep from the
> technical community and the private sector expressed support. We may need
> them to support this proposal. During the MAG however some state reps were
> not too keen on making the above as the overall theme. There was also a
> specific objection to using the term 'internet rights' which may look like
> meaning there was a new and accepted category of rights. I have now, on the
> MAG email list, proposed that we may use the term 'internet and rights' or
> 'an rights based approach to IG' to address the above objection. However, we
> need to canvass more support with gov reps that may be helpful, and also
> seek the support of technical community and the private sector. If we cannot
> get this as the overall theme, we should at least seek a main session
> discussion on it.
>
> I also proposed 'Network Neutrality' or 'principles of an open architecture
> of the Internet'. There was some support but the discussion did not go far.
> we may need to again take it up in May. There was a lot of discussion around
> privacy issues and how they should be framed for a discussion at the next
> IGF.
>
> I also proposed that in light of broadband investments becoming a key part
> of many a 'stimulus packages' in many countries of the North, this issue and
> its overall ramifications and significance for how we may look at broadband
> more and more as a key social infrastructure, and investments into it from
> the lens of 'social overhead capital' , should be taken up as a key 'access'
> issue at the IGF. I found some key members supporting this idea, and I think
> it is an interesting one to explore further.
>
> Thanks
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090301/3afb1db4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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