[governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius

[McTim]

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 05/04/2010, at 10:32 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>>> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>>
>> These seem to be about Internet ideas, not IG ideas. This one should
>> be scrapped IMO.
>
> That was my concern also, so I added "The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored", and we must make sure that this is the case.

I don't see any IG dimensions, there may be some, but it's a
far-fetched thing IMO.  I would much prefer the IGF to focus on
strictly IG issues.


  It is apparent from previous meetings that talking about governance
only can be a little abstract for many at the IGF.  Personally I think
that beginning with a very practical application of the Internet for
development is a good way to draw people in to the discussion of its
governance implications.
>
>>> WORKSHOP 2
>>> ==========
>>> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
>>
>> While this one is about IG, it looks like a dog's breakfast to me.
>
> Well, it was originally two separate workshops so I can take that criticism on board. Perhaps we could drop the WSIS 2015 from the title, and just address this part in one speaker's presentation.
>
>> Can we focus on the real, current and pressing IG issues we see
>> everyday instead of some la-di-da "what if" nonsense??
>
> What would you include, within the scope of the workshop title?

How about the recent DNS hijacking from the rootserver node located in
China?  (I don't care what the Secretariat thinks frankly)  If we
can't talk about the actual ongoing issues in IG, then let's not have
an IGF anymore!

>
>> Seriously, what IG decisions were made in 2005?  The IGF can't really
>> be desvribed as an IG decision, can it?  If you want this thing to be
>> meaningful and relevant, which many seem to want, then you have to
>> make it meaningful and relevant.
>
> Sure the formation of the IGF was an IG decision.

Wassn't at all IG, just talking about IG, not actual IG.

 Doing nothing at all would have been an IG decision, too.  Not the
right one, but still a decision.
>
> Since it seems to be a popular idea, I think we should try to refine this workshop proposal to overcome your concerns.  Perhaps you, Hakikur, Roxana and others who have commented, could propose specific text to improve what we already have below:
>
> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.

I'd be happy if it was just this para.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t