[governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation

[Izumi AIZU]

Hi,
Sorry for this late response. I thought I had sent this 12 hours ago, but
it was not.
In any case, I do support a workshop on EC at next IGF.
But as Bill puts, I just am not sure how we can organize one under the
official program since proposals are all sort of closed by now.
Maybe one possible way is to use the one IGC submitted and accepted on the
theme of IGF improvement,  or "#85 Quo vadis IGF- evolution of IGF" .

Yet that requires the consensus of all co-sponsors. That may be difficult
and may not be the best way forward as mixing IGF improvement and EC. What
do you guys think? If agree, I can ask them.
This is designated as Feeder Workshop, so summary of the discussion will be
transmitted to
the Main session on Taking Stock and the Way Forward.

I also strongly support and appreciate Anritte's and APC's initiative for
one day pre-event though we may have clash with other CS related meetings.

Third option is, to organize an Open Forum, I guess. It only says "All
major organisations dealing with Internet Governance related issues are
invited to submit proposals for Open
Forum<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/104-general/789-of>,
using this form <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/open-fora>. The deadline
for submission is *30 June 2012*."

Though the weight is somewhat light, we can still do within the IGF
program.

izumi

2012年5月29日火曜日 Avri Doria avri at ella.com:

> Dear MAG member,
>
> why no support for at least a workshop at IGF12?
>
> avri
>
> On 28 May 2012, at 11:12, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> > Yes... let's do the pre-event in Baku. APC is willing to lead on this
> > but we are talking to others to co-convene.
> >
> > And then let's get the 2013 IGF to feature various aspects of EC much
> > more prominently.  IGF 2013 will be hosted in a developing country
> > (Indonesia) and it is therefore likely to have far greater developing
> > country government participation (at least from Asian and African
> > countries).
> >
> > Also by then quite a lot would have happened at CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA level
> > (and WCIT) as well as inside some of the existing institutions. E.g. the
> > assessments, report cards, mapping and other suggestions made on the
> > 18th of May.
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> >
> > On 28/05/2012 16:37, Avri Doria wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Personally I think we need to keep pushing for something during IGF2012.
> >>
> >> Let's go into WCIT with the IGF having made room for the problem and
> having started the process.  We have 5 months yet before the meeting,
> things can't possibly be set in stone at this point.  We have a new MAG
> that was forced to accept a program they were not completely comfortable
> with, they are entitled to still be thinking about how to make IGF12 as
> valuable as they possibly can.  (Not that I have the faintest idea of
> whether they would be interested in taking such action)
> >>
> >> And whether we can get it into the IGF12 agenda, which I think its the
> optimal solution, or not, I think the idea that Anriette mentioned on the
> list earlier:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear Avri
> >>>
> >>> We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning
> a
> >>> pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various
> >>> partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue.
> >>>
> >>> The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to
> >>> prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they
> might
> >>> have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of
> >>> the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG.
> >>>
> >>> Anriette
> >>
> >> Perhaps since 71 puts the responsibility on the relevant organizations
> (which I take to mean the mangers of critical Internet resources) to get
> this underway: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards
> enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders", it won't be to hard to
> find a set of good sponsors for such an event.
> >>
> >> But to be clear. I would like to see both a full day pre-event
> discussion, and for that event to bring a report (dare i say
> recommendations?) to the IGF in a workshop arranged for discussion of EC
> and the IGF.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120529/55415caf/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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