[Rigf_program] public call for comments, APrIGF 2013

[Fouad Bajwa]

Dear Paul,

I would like to add support to your suggestions. 

Best Regards
Fouad Bajwa

Sent from my mobile device

On Mar 18, 2013, at 9:09 AM, "Rajnesh D. Singh" <singh at isoc.org> wrote:

> +1 to Paul's comments (albeit a bit late in the piece).
> 
> Raj
> 
> 
> From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
> To: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>, "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>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:08:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rigf_program] public call for comments, APrIGF 2013
> 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_secretariat/attachments/20130319/cdf26a30/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program