[governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online

Wed Jul 11 14:58:14 EDT 2012

Thanks for this Avri. I had a short email chat with Jeremy today. This
event could be a good opportunity for these ideas to be presented.

Work on the outline and programme of the pre-event has stalled for now
although the event is definitely going ahead. We will pick up work on
prep again asap and will post more info here.

Anriette

On 11/07/2012 19:00, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> I will be curious to see how this goes.  Do you expect any conversation in Vancouver? A bar BoF?
> Note: IETF is also hosting non-WG mailing lists, so perhaps if you see an interest in the IETF environment you can talk to the ADs about getting one of those going.  I will also be curious as to how the IAB and ISOC respond to the draft.  They could take up the call and say something.
> 
> On a related note, in 
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2012/07/internet-governance-what-enhanced-cooperation>
> 
> "
> We agreed with the Association of Progressive Communication (APC) and ICC-BASIS to organize a one-day pre-event back-to-back with the IGF in Baku on 5 November 2012. We also approached the previous developing country IGF Hosts and have received positive answers from Brazil, Egypt and Kenya to participate in this event. I announced this initiative on a panel on the Internet governance landscape at the ICANN meeting in Prague on 25 June.
> "
> 
> In your draft you suggest:
> 
> "
> The work of this Preparatory Working-Group could begin with an in-
>    person kick-off meeting which might be a one-day pre-event for the
>    2013 Internet Governance Forum.
> "
> 
> As I understand it, the pre-event day is shaping up to have several choices. so far I now of possible plans: the high level ministerial, ISOC, Giganet, the EC event Markus mentioned in the blog and the ECTF preparatory.  I expect all of these may have some discussion of EC.  Should be a good day for furthering EC in an IGF context, though I hope the various efforts find way to share some of the common topics so that we are not torn as to which to attend.  
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 Jul 2012, at 11:20, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> asked, and Milton seconded, the questions:
>>
>>> But since this is not an IETF plan, I really don't understand why an
>>> I-D
>>
>> As far as I know, the Internet Draft process is the only
>> well-established, reasonably flexible mechanism for
>> circulation of draft documents provided by any Internet
>> Governance institution with the following important
>> properties:
>> - it can be used by anyone (in fact the required I-D boilerplate
>>  states explicitly "Note that other groups may also distribute
>>  working documents as Internet-Drafts".)
>> - document authors retain unlimited rights to also circulate
>>  what they have written in other ways.
>>
>> The IGF certainly doesn't provide any mechanism for the
>> circulation of draft documents that I could have used instead.
>>
>> In any case, I hope that using a format and mechanism that IETF
>> participants are familiar with will help with attractive some
>> of them to taking an active role in the nascent ECTF. I think
>> that given a key part of the plan is to use rough consensus
>> decision making mechanisms, it is important to seek to attract
>> a good number of people with relevant experience.
>>
>>> and by what IETF process do you intend this to come about?
>>
>> I don't plan to use any formal IETF process besides the "Independent
>> Submissions" stream, as described in RFC 4846 [1], for I-Ds and
>> possibly (if the RFC Editor decides to accept it) eventual publication
>> as an informative RFC.
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846
>>
>> Quoting from the Abstract of that RFC: 
>>
>>   There is a long-standing tradition in the Internet community,
>>   predating the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) by many years,
>>   of use of the RFC Series to publish materials that are not rooted in
>>   the IETF standards process and its review and approval mechanisms.
>>
>> Anyway, it is clearly no longer possible for a meaningful "process
>> towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN
>> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of
>> the first quarter of 2006", as foreseen in papa 71 of the Tunis agenda.
>>
>> The only way in which meaningful Enhanced Cooperation can come about
>> now is IMO by means of some kind of ad hoc process, centered around
>> the IGF community, open to participation of anyone who wants to
>> participate and is able to do so in a constructive manner, reaching
>> out particularly to groups and organizations who clearly have relevant
>> expertise (IGC, IETF, national governments, international organizations).
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
> 
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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