AW: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

Sun Feb 3 03:27:48 EST 2013

One key issue has to be the continuation of the discussion of universal Principles of Internet Governance for a multistakeholder framework of commitments. I moderate a workshop on the issue end of February at WSIS 10+ in Paris with MAG members and it would be very good of IGC could become one of the drivers to move the process forward towards a more universal instrument/framework as disucssed in the final plenary in Baku. 

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: So 03.02.2013 06:05
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

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> <mailto:pouzin at well.com>  wrote:

			On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>  wrote:

				Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> <mailto: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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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