[Rigf_program] public call for comments, APrIGF 2013

Thu Mar 14 06:26:19 HKT 2013

Hello Hong,  

Nice to hear that you are with UNESCAP.

"Paperless trade" is a very topical issue these days, along with trade in
online services, digital assets and other virtual goods.  I don't see
those on the draft agenda, but I would support their inclusion.

I do think you can alert ESCAP people to the meeting and possible topics,
and be sure to keep in touch with them.

Thanks,

Paul.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hong Xue <hongxueipr at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 13 March 2013 11:36 PM
To: Kuo-Wei Wu <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>, "program at ap.rigf.asia PC"
<program at ap.rigf.asia>, Rinalia Abdul Rahim
<rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>, vivek anannd <vivekvc2001 at yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [Rigf_program] public call for comments, APrIGF 2013

>Hi, I'm not sure if I can manage to join the call on Friday either. So
>sharing some rough thoughts with you.
>
>We talked about enhancement of involvement of gov.s and IGOs at
>regional IGF. Last year, I did approached UNESCO Beijing Office but
>their officers were not able to join us physically because the travel
>to Tokyo was not put into their internet budget well before the
>meeting, So if we want to invite the officials from gov. or IGOs, we
>may want to do this asap to enable them to process internally.
>
>I'm right now at UNESCAP for a treaty-drafting meeting. Please brief
>me whether I should approach the UN officials on paperless trade
>facilitation right here regarding our plan for rIGF in Seoul in
>September? Or, we should wait until more "organizationally" settled?
>
>Is there a call for suggestions on the website, with closing date of
>31 March? I was not aware of either. Seems we all missed the deadline.
>
>Hong
>
>
>On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Kuo-Wei Wu <kuoweiwu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul+1.
>>
>> At this moment, I will suggest to focus on program for APrIGF Seoul
>>meeting.
>> Regarding to the process, we can reserve a 3 hours open discussion in
>>Seoul
>> too. As I know, the members are very open from the very first day. Here
>>are
>> something we have to do:
>>
>> 1. form a "committee" (although we have a committee since 2010)
>> 2. and the committee have to figure out the "secrtariat" (such as
>>dotAsia
>> did in the last four years) and the cost (dotAsia provide free support
>>in
>> the last four year).
>> 3. Begin to open for proposal for the next few years (2014, 2015,..)
>>
>> I expect we should focus on the program agenda for APrIGF Seoul meeting
>> immediately. And leave those issues (above) for ICANN Beijing meeting
>>(if we
>> plan to have one). And continue to discuss in Seoul.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Kuo Wu
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rigf_program mailing list
>> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Professor Dr. Hong Xue
>Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
>Beijing Normal University
>http://www.iipl.org.cn/
>19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
>Beijing 100875 China

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