[governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jan 14 12:07:52 EST 2010
I hope that IGC is able to highlight the fact that while IGF Hyderabad
ended on a relatively high note where there seemed to be a consensus
that the IGF process should now move forward and try to become more
focussed and more purposive, IGF Sharm did not really take the promised
steps forward. The closing session at Hyderabad had clearly addressed
this imperative and gave enough outlines to push us towards a more
focussed and purposed approach - key issues based round tables was the
key format around which such an approach was anchored.
At Sharm nothing like this happened, and in fact Sharm was the first
time where some significant substantive or process innovation over the
earlier IGF did not take place. (I know this was also because of the
realpolitik around IGF renewal, but we need not play that tune, and say
what we have to say - observing and realting the facts as that stand.)
Merely saying things are going along well at the IGF is not what we may
want to project as our comments. IGF is supposed to help along global
policy making in the important IG space and I really do not see it going
anywhere at present in this regard. There are, no doubt, huge
possibilities, but civil society actors would need to do a lot of
pushing along for them to be realized. parminder
Ginger Paque wrote:
> Thanks, Roxana and Lee for your emails.
>
> Everyone...
>
> I have copied below the thread from the IRP Mailing list, that refers
> to their progress on a statement for the IGF OC for Feb., to be
> submitted as a written contribution by January 15th. This gives you an
> idea of where they are going. I will post the final draft when it is
> posted on the IRP list.
>
> I am not suggesting that we opine as to the content of the IRP
> statement. If anyone wants to do that, they should do so on the IRP
> list. All we will do is either support their statement or not,
> depending on IGC consensus.
>
> Thanks, gp
>
>
> [Fwd: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010]
>
> Dear Lisa and all,
>
> I'm comfortable with all the suggestions to the statement presented so
> far, but I feel deeply concerned with the adoption of the term "users"
> as a general category. Who are the everyday Internet users?
>
> I think we should stress the importance of assuring diversity of
> voices, of regional and linguistical representation, the participation
> of underepresented groups, etc, etc, but I see the proposal of
> bringing the "everyday internet users" to the IGF quite dangerous.
> Besides, I guess everyone who goes to the IGF is an everyday internet
> user.
>
> best,
> Graciela
>
>
> Lisa Horner escreveu:
>> Everyone, please send your ideas through for the Open Consultations. We
>> should focus on practical suggestions for the 2010 agenda. It's really
>> important that we get our ideas in now, before the agenda is agreed and
>> it's too late. We need your ideas NOW as we need to draft a statement
>> and get it submitted by the 15th.
>>
>> I guess if no one has anything to add, we should keep it short and
>> succinct, focusing on human rights rather than the process issues.
>>
>> In addition to my previous comments, I'd like to add another...
>>
>> The IGF (including regional and international) needs to find ways of
>> better involving everyday internet users in the discussions, and of
>> improving participation from developing countries. This is particularly
>> important if we are to uphold human rights in and through IG - users
>> need to know what their rights are and how to claim them, as well as
>> contribute to the formation of policies that affect them.
>>
>> In terms of practical suggestions of how this might happen....
>> A main session on what users need from the IGF, including discussion of
>> how to better include users in any future incarnations of the IGF?
>> Session organizers agreeing to consult with users, and explaining how
>> they have on feedback forms/in session reports? National IGFs
>> formalizing participation from users, including outreach
>> and information campaign?
>> Setting up some kind of portal/interface for everyday users to explain
>> ideas and needs?
>> More focus on the discussion RE funding for a wider range of
>> participants.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Lisa
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk] Sent: 11 January 2010
>> 10:29
>> To: Lisa Horner; irp
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
>>
>> Dear All
>>
>> Thanks Lisa for these comments.
>>
>> Anyone else have anything to add?
>>
>> Cheers
>> MF
>>
>> --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner
>> <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne. Some very quick notes
>>> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion
>>> about the options...
>>>
>>> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
>>>
>>> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have
>>>
>> improved
>>
>>> each year.
>>> - Remote participation seemed to work well. However, workshop
>>> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and
>>> technicians weren't always on hand. More information in advance would
>>> be useful.
>>> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the
>>> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The
>>>
>> challenge
>>
>>> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and
>>> what roles different stakeholders can/should play.
>>> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the
>>> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone
>>> have an update on the status of those discussions?)
>>> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't
>>>
>> great.
>>
>>> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness,
>>> diversity etc felt a bit stale. The new themes introduced were
>>> refreshing.
>>> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but
>>> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion
>>> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive.
>>>
>>> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting.
>>>
>>> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could
>>>
>> more
>>
>>> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that
>>> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to?
>>>
>>> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human
>>> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more
>>> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity. I think
>>>
>> these
>>
>>> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't
>>>
>> been
>>
>>> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on
>>>
>> this?
>>
>>> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to
>>> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development
>>> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that.
>>>
>> Should
>>
>>> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again?
>>>
>>> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that
>>>
>> it
>>
>>> participates in the organization of the main session related to
>>> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy.
>>>
>>> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and
>>> international IGFs better together? It would probably be useful if
>>>
>> this
>>
>>> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each
>>>
>> IGF
>>
>>> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the
>>> openness session. Would require work though - no resources to do it??
>>>
>>> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main
>>> sessions? There was no formal feedback session last year, and
>>>
>> workshop
>>
>>> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main
>>> sessions as far as I'm aware.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf
>>>
>> Of
>>
>>> M I Franklin
>>> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50
>>> To: irp
>>> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
>>>
>>> Dear All
>>>
>>> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the
>>> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for
>>> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open
>>> consultations
>>> in preparation for Vilnius later this year.
>>>
>>> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is
>>>
>> pasted
>>
>>> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the
>>> process;
>>> point 4 in particular.
>>>
>>> In short, the IRP statement can cover:
>>>
>>>
>>> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I
>>>
>> will
>>
>>> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to
>>>
>> be
>>
>>> ready to go by 15 January.
>>>
>>> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> ciao
>>> MF
>>>
>>> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa
>>> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear Friends,
>>>>
>>>> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
>>>> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
>>>> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
>>>> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
>>>> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and
>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
>>>> during the consultation.
>>>>
>>>> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
>>>> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
>>>> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
>>>> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
>>>> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
>>>> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies
>>>>
>> here
>>
>>>> as well!
>>>>
>>>> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not
>>>>
>> limited
>>
>>> to:
>>>
>>>> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
>>>> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
>>>> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
>>>> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
>>>> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
>>>> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.
>>>>
>>>> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
>>>> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
>>>> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
>>>> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to assisting your interventions.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards.
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> Fouad Bajwa
>>>> Advisor & Researcher
>>>> ICT4D & Internet Governance
>>>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
>>>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
>>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance
>>>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>>>> Follow my Tweets:
>>>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>>> MAG Interview:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IRP mailing list
>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
>>
>>> g
>>>
>>>> htsandprinciples.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dr Marianne Franklin
>>> Reader
>>> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
>>> Media & Communications
>>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>> New Cross
>>> London SE14 6NW
>>> United Kingdom
>>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
>>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
>>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
>>
>>> dia.php
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>
>>>
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
>>
>>> ghtsandprinciples.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>
>>>
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
>> g
>>
>>> htsandprinciples.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Marianne Franklin
>> Reader
>> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
>> Media & Communications
>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>> New Cross
>> London SE14 6NW
>> United Kingdom
>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
>> dia.php
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100114/de65bca7/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
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list