[Rigf_program] public call for comments, APrIGF 2013

Thu Mar 14 07:00:19 HKT 2013

Dear All,

ISOC would like to propose "Intermediary Liability" as one of the APrIGF topic for discussion given that many governments in the region are thinking of developing their data proaction and soon enough privacy law for their people.

And I agree with Hong that to have the government present, we need to inform them as early as possible especially announcing the topics the meeting will cover. Some topics which are hot on the policy list post WCIT-12 and WTSA-12 would be a good start aside from our own IGF community list. 

To share, I recently participated in the regional APT/ITU WCIT-12 and WTSA-12 Outcome meeting and I invited all the attending governments to look out for the APrIGF 2013 in Seoul and the Global IGF in Bali as well. There was interests and questions about what the Seoul would be deliberating. One great outcome form the meeting was that APT MCs felt that they could as a region be collectively more successful when proposing policies which affect the region at the global stage. i.e. 80% of their proposal were approved. ISOC message there was to have governments participate or at least attend the upcoming IGFs and learn from the other group of stakeholders in the IGF meetings. 

We probably need to come up with a programme and plan to get them involved this time around. I leave this food for thought to our committee/community.

Cheers!
Thip

On 14 Mar 2556 BE, at 05:26, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:

> 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

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