[governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Thu May 12 11:21:25 EDT 2011

I will be going to the meetings.

We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
the end of this week.

I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.

IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of interest.

Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!

Fouad

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG.
> However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be
> working in the SOP workshops.
>
> If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key and hot
> policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss
> it! Katitza.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> ________________________________
> From: katitza at eff.org
> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
> Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
> Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
> Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I
> will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the
> last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should
> make sure to defend, please let me know.
>
> All the best, Katitza.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
> proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>
> Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
> main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
> proposal.
>
>
>
> Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
> revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
> reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
> CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
> shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
> and the technical community, in my view.
>
>
>
> A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
> starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
> reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
> for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>
>
>
> The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
> workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
> of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
> proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
> focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
> would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
> in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
> political considerations.
>
>
>
> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
> will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
> improvement?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marília
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>> > >> they
>> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>> > >> suggesting
>> >
>> > >> that the three be merged.
>> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>> > >
>> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
>> >
>> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
>> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
>> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
>> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
>> > difficult to speculate.
>>
>> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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