[Rigf_program] public call for comments, APrIGF 2013

[Paul Wilson]

Thanks Adam.

These issues were raised again in Singapore, and so I agree that action is
needed in terms of open and clear processes that fulfil multistakeholder
expectations.  This has been agreed already, more than once, so I don't
think there is any need to interpret reluctance on anyone's part, or to
expect any argument about the basic need.

Of course the themes, format and agenda for any IGF meeting should be
assembled through an open process and we can do that in this case through
an open call as Adam suggests.  The rigf.asia does already contain a call
for suggestions, with closing date of 31 March, which I was not aware of.
That's a good start but I think this needs to be opened up in an online
forum or open mailing list which allows discussion and visibility of other
comments.  Also the opportunity to provide input needs to be widely
advertised as Adam suggests.

I would also suggest that the Host's draft programme (which is excellent
by the way) can be considered as a proposal, and I suggest to publish it
as such, which allows the community to respond to it, as well as to make
"original contributions" of their own.

We do have time to do this, providing that we start soon, so I hope that
this can be added to the agenda for Friday's call.   I would think that
the deadline can be extended by another month to the end of April, without
causing too much trouble.

There are other issues around the next IGF to be discussed as well, so I
hope we have space on the agenda.  We need to determine a timeline for
decision on location, on the MSG (programme committee) and other critical
milestones.

Paul.


-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Date: Tuesday, 12 March 2013 1:15 PM
To: "program at ap.rigf.asia PC" <program at ap.rigf.asia>
Cc: vivek anannd <vivekvc2001 at yahoo.co.in>, Rinalia Abdul Rahim
<rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
Subject: [Rigf_program] public call for comments, APrIGF 2013

>Hi everyone,
>
>I am not sure if I can make Friday's call, it's around the time I need
>to catch a train.  But a couple of things concerning me about progress
>and mainly process so far.
>
>We had some lengthy discussions following last years APrIGF and the
>IGF in Baku about organizing the APrIGF, particularly opening the
>process, ensuring it was more inclusive, transparent and accountable
>to the region's stakeholders.  Unless I'm much mistaken, we now seem
>to be proceeding much the same as the previous 3 years.
>
>I suggest we hold for a while on developing the agenda further and put
>out for public comment what we have so far:
>
>Location and dates of the meeting.  Support received so far.  An
>outline of what the meeting might look like, i.e. a blank schedule, to
>show plenary and concurrent sessions.  I want to be clear, I think our
>Korean hosts are doing a great job.  These comments are *not*
>criticism, *not* intended as negative.
>
>I suggest we issue a public call to help convene the meeting.  The
>call can mirror the global IGF process, ask for ideas for an overall
>theme for main sessions (how many can there be?) and ideas for
>sub-themes (how many can there be?).  At the same time, reasonable to
>include all the themes already suggested.
>
>Set a date for submitting comments.  Each of us should outreach to our
>respective networks and contacts to make sure the call for comments is
>widely seen.  Someone should be responsible for contacting the
>Indonesian IGF team (I met them in Paris, happy to introduce if
>necessary.)
>
>If we don't do this I'm concerned we are going to again face
>criticism, probably more severe than before.
>
>Best,
>
>Adam
>_______________________________________________
>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