[Rigf_program] Further topic for the Tokyo agenda

[Wu Kuo]

I love Hotta's idea. Why not just do it?

Kuo Wu

HiroHOTTA 於 2012/5/14 上午12:49 寫道：

> 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


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