[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

Sun Feb 3 01:03:09 EST 2013

I agree with  earlier proposals (adam and others) that a full day with 
various possible different formats be devoted to one key theme (which I 
propose be as a clerly laid out policy question, as also recommended by 
the WG on IGF)

I think it is time to move on from generic hold all sessions that the 
IGF still mostly consists of..

parminder

On Sunday 03 February 2013 10:35 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> 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/20130203/6af915d7/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