[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

Sun Feb 3 00:05:20 EST 2013

On Sunday 03 February 2013 10:20 AM, parminder wrote:
> <snip>
>
> There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis  a vis the 
> fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy 
> questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of. For 
> tooo long it has remained caught in matters of process and form. It is 
> time to do what it really needed to do.

In keeping with the spirit of the recs of the WG on IGF improvements, 
civil society/ IGC need to debate on what it considers are the key 
public policy questions in the IG space today, and recommend some of 
them to be taken up by the Baku IGF.

I proposes that the following policy question be taken up at Baku, for 
the cited reasons.

"How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of 
the global Internet, and what the mechanisms and institutions involved 
in this process?"

In my estimate this is indeed 'a' if not 'the' key public policy 
question in the IG space today.

It was the key issue at WCIT (ETNO proposal), and indeed at the BestBits 
civil society meeting, in terms of whether an ITU like institution has a 
role in the Net neutrality issue, and if so how, at what level - at the 
ITRs level or otherwise.

Net neutrality (NN) issue indeed lies at the centre of ITU controversy - 
at least for those who do not see ITU as the place to build statist 
leverage for content control and over domain name space - with the issue 
being whether NN like issues of infrastructural neutrality lies in ITU's 
realm and by extension of the paradigm, in the realm of respective 
Telecom regulators at the national levels.

In the US (and also many other countries) a fundamental, paradigm 
invoking, struggle about NN and insitutional competencies of various 
actors is playing out rather intensely right now...

How things move in the above regard, in the next 2-3 years, will set the 
basic architectural and regulatory principles about the Internet. 
Whereby,  this appears to be 'the' key public policy question that must 
be taken up by the IGF.

parminder

>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> Louis Pouzin<pouzin at well.com>  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>  wrote:
>>>> Louis Pouzin<pouzin at well.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> re Main sessions.
>>>>> *Only two *90min main sessions.
>>>>> One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
>>>>> Interpretation only in english.
>>>>> Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
>>>> Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
>>>> like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
>>>> session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
>>>> [1]http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
>>>>
>>>> If so, why?
>>> Yes Norbert.
>>>
>>> Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
>>> celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
>>> truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
>>> because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
>>> that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
>>>
>>> One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
>>> means. Result will tell.
>>>
>>> Workshops are more effective because:
>>> - there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
>>> one,
>>> - speakers use spontaneous language,
>>> - there are more interactions with the attendees,
>>> - specific topics fit better with a small room,
>>> - it's easier to identify who is there.
>>>
>>> On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
>>> english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
>>> could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
>>> various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
>>> (Chicagoan).
>> Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
>> making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
>> give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
>> just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
>> and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
>> that is truly taken seriously.
>>
>> So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
>> the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
>> for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
>> of them.
>>
>> So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
>> request.
>>
>> What do the others think?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130203/86b00d77/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