[Rigf_program] Further topic for the Tokyo agenda

[Wu Kuo]

Here is my suggestion:

1. For those countries running "local IGF in their societies", the topic should be "how to raise the community to recognize the importance of IGF for their society"? In stead of "sequential reports" (and I think, that is not that many). I can talk about "what happen in Taiwan now" (although not much, the society focus on very local political issue than international global issue recently).

2. Such as "ICT for disaster", Japan already prepare to give a talk and their action recently. Hopefully, there are some people willing to join the discussion to share their experience. I know one person in Taiwan did a lot of work in this issue when Taiwan had a big flooding killing thousand people, and damaging hundreds of twins and people on  Aug. 8th, 2009. I try to get him to join the session. 

3. "Confrontation on Internet", which we can have some one to describe SOPA/PIPA in US congress, some one talk about the development on ACTA in EC, and some one talk about the topic can be happened in IGF/Baku (Paul might be a good person, since he is a member of MAG). As I know, Dr. William Drake is coming to the APrIGF, he is a wright person to talk about the possible political development in WCIT. If necessary, I can be the moderator if no one want to be. :-)

4. Then we have to have a closing session to summary up what we have in this meeting. Peng Hwa is the best person to do that and work it out. So he can continue to report it in IGF/Baku for us.

Kuo Wu


Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) 於 2012/5/12 下午5:23 寫道：

> Agreed too. An issues-based panel would be more interesting than
> sequential reporting.
> 
> The session would need a more pro-active and engaged panel chair.
> 
> On 12/5/12 3:30 PM, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> 
>> I agree, a session on country IGF activities would be a good thing.  Can
>> we find out more precisely how many of those there will be?
>> 
>> I think the structure of the session deserves some thought - because the
>> least interesting is to have a series of sequential free-form reports,
>> without preparation or structure.  Perhaps a panel-format with discussion
>> organised by theme?
>> 
>> Maybe we could have discussion not only of the content but of the form
>> and functioning of the IGF itself - i.e. gathering views on ongoing
>> direction/improvement of the event, and the whole "IGF system" such as it
>> is.
>> 
>> If this is planned in advance clearly enough, then that could also inform
>> the national processes (or at least the panelists) in advance of the
>> meetings themselves (those that are yet to happen).
>> 
>> paul
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/05/2012, at 11:01 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> 
>>> Very good idea, Keith and Kuo Wu.
>>> 
>>> Izumi
>>> 
>>> 2012年5月12日土曜日 Keith Davidson keith at internetnz.net.nz:
>>> Fully agree with these comments Kuo Wu. If we could have a "reporting in
>>> session" from any countries and territories who have issues to raise. I
>>> would think it would only be 5 minutes per country or per "in-country
>>> IGF" - raising only the 3 or 4 most significant issues for the local
>>> Internet community?
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Keith
>>> 
>>> On 11/05/2012 5:07 p.m., Wu Kuo wrote:
>>>> My comment is : It is fine for those countries have its' own IGF to
>>> report their concern and comment. But it is also fine to figure out the
>>> regional common interest or special issues. If you can share how NZ work
>>> on your own IGF, it is good experience sharing to others. :-)
>>>> 
>>>> Kuo Wu
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>>>> 
>>>> Keith Davidson<keith at internetnz.net.nz>  於 2012/5/11 12:20 寫道：
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Peng Hwa and all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was wondering if it might be considered useful to have a session
>>>>> marked down for reporting in on other "in-country" or sub-regional
>>> IGFs
>>>>> from around the AP region? For example, NZ is convening its IGF the
>>> week
>>>>> before the APrIGF - as is Japan also, I think - so I think it could
>>> be
>>>>> of some use to have reports from those who have had an IGF, or will
>>> have
>>>>> an IGF in the near future, to advise what the major issues arising
>>> were etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> 
>>>>> Keith
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rigf_program mailing list
>>>>> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>>>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rigf_program mailing list
>>> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>>>> Izumi Aizu <<
>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>> Japan
>>> www.anr.org
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rigf_program mailing list
>>> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>> 
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
>> http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100
>> 
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.
> 
> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program


_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program