[governance] Workshops proposals for IGF was Re: [] COMMENTS SOUGHT: ...

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I agree with this.  I support #3 as expressed below.

And I support Anriette's proposal which is similar to #2: "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability and  transparency in MS processes"

avri

On 18 Mar 2013, at 23:54, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> I fully support the third proposal.
> 
> For the first one, we need to be clear on scope.  Net neutrality is too vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc.  It has also got itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture.
> 
> As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this thread.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? 
>> 
>> Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. 
>> 
>> I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals
>> 
>> One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado.
>> 
>> Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies' .
>> 
>> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question.  
>> 
>> Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals  
>> 
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>> 


-------------- 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