[governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals

Sun Mar 13 04:25:14 EDT 2011

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Vijay, It is past midnight here, I am logging off

( I am sorry, please ignore this, meant to be sent to my office staff ! )

>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As we are entering the new phase of IGF, it could be a good idea to
>> review and re-emphasize the concept of multi-stakeholder deliberations
>> and multistakeholder governance. Is there a way to introduce thematic
>> discussions on this foundation topic and dispel doubts and deal with
>> the hesitations?
>>
>>
>> Sivasubramanian M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry to take so long to reply to this -
>>>
>>> In addition toi the excellent proposals put forward by Parminder, I wonder
>>> if we should tackle the general A2K area – access to knowledge. I personally
>>> would like to see a plenary session (I think IGF plenary topics have become
>>> boring and repetitive) - but at the least a good workshop would be useful.
>>>
>>> Others involved in this general area might have suggestions – but it is
>>> certainly a subject area where we can get some excellent input from all
>>> stakeholder groups and some stimulating debate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:50:55 +0530
>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>> Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals
>>>
>>> Hi Jeremy
>>>
>>> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which
>>> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into
>>> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately
>>> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF
>>> Nairobi'.
>>>
>>> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that
>>> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular
>>> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil
>>> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy.
>>>
>>> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF
>>> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision
>>> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has
>>> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing
>>> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing
>>> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.)
>>>
>>> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the
>>> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why
>>> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on
>>> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this
>>> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far
>>> the dominant platform for Internet?
>>>
>>> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever
>>> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy
>>> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two
>>> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the
>>> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are
>>> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy
>>> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance
>>> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big
>>> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what
>>> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication
>>> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises.
>>>
>>> Anyway back to the topic,
>>>
>>> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile
>>> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real
>>> world IG would be two very different worlds.
>>>
>>> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG'
>>>
>>> And I propose a third topic
>>>
>>> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG'
>>>
>>> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the
>>> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting.  Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF
>>> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but
>>> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF.
>>>
>>> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before.  So it
>>> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme
>>> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and
>>> reuse.  Here are relevant links:
>>>
>>> PROGRAMME:
>>>
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius)
>>>
>>> IMPROVEMENTS:
>>>
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF)
>>>
>>> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights
>>> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing
>>> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PK
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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