[Rigf_program] public call for comments, APrIGF 2013

[Adam Peake]

I'd also not noticed the announcement on the <http://2013.rigf.asia/> site:

"Please suggest agenda items you would like to discuss at the meeting
in Seoul by E-mail.  MARCH 31, 2013"

A bit too hidden away, and not something we can use to send around in
email to various lists, etc.  I thought there was an announcement of a
call for contributions, think I remember discussion of such, but I
have been dropping in and out of the program committee/had problems
making calls so haven't contributed as much as I should.

Suggest we add some text to the website that can also be used in email
to lists/organizations/individuals.  Creating a mailing list people
could join and use to discuss themes and the program would be good.

The announcement should make clear it is an open call for proposals on
the theme of the 2013 APrIGF, and proposals on main sessions and
sub-sessions (workshops).

Include a link to the draft proposal from the Korean hosts (the
powerpoint included with YJ's email of a few days ago).  It's good and
Illustrates the number of sessions and parallel sessions.

Invite people to submit comments by email, and invite those interested
in participating discussion to join a program mailing list (need a new
list.)

Also suggest a bit more time's needed, is the end of April too late?

And it should include the dates and location of the APrIGF (September
4-6, 2013, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea) and organizers (I
think: KIGA, ISOC-kr, and KISA, APrIGF, Korea Communications
Commission, Ewha Womans University).

Adam


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:08 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