[Rigf_program] Further topic for the Tokyo agenda

[HiroHOTTA]

Before the APrIGF meeting, how about conducting surveys on 
how each country is active in IGF.  As an introduction of 
national IGF report session, it may be good to show the 
activeness/inactiveness of national IGF.  For example, 
survey about the score (1-5) of the activity of each 
stakeholder (government, civil society, company users, 
consumer users, operators, ...) may be interesting.

I know it is both good and bad to make it clear how each 
country behave in IGF-like activity.  But I also think it 
is worthwhile to analyze the activities of each national 
IGF in our region, in order for each country to analyze 
the reasons of it's inactiveness about IGF and how they 
can focus on activating national activities.

Hiro


On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:29:04 +0900
Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> The Final version was v5, sent to this list.
> However it is just CFP not program itself, or do you mean the latest
> program?
> That was sent by Peng Hwa in Word format.
> We need to wait for May 24 deadline to acceptore proposals and then shape
> them to final as as evolving way.
> 
> Izumi
> 
> 2012年5月13日日曜日 Wu Kuo kuoweiwu at gmail.com:
> 
> > I just reply PengHwa's email. Where is the final version? or we still
> > modify it?
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Kuo Wu
> >
> > Hong Xue 於 2012/5/13 上午8:46 寫道：
> >
> > > It seems the discussions at the conference calls were not got through
> > > to the community, neither were the proposals circulated to the list.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Wu Kuo <kuoweiwu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> 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 al
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>                      >> 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