[Rigf_program] contribution on national/regional IGFs to IGF open consultation May 21

[Adam Peake]

I will send the document and cc the list

Adam



On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia at apnic.net> wrote:
> I really like that suggestion, simple and bold.
>
> From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Date: Thursday, 16 May 2013 12:32 AM
> To: "kabani.asif at gmail.com" <kabani.asif at gmail.com>
> Cc: program <program at aprigf.asia>
>
> Subject: Re: [Rigf_program] contribution on national/regional IGFs to IGF
> open consultation May 21
>
> How about adding a new opening sentence, simply:
>
> National and regional IGFs are essential building blocks of the global IGF.
>
> And then continue as the earlier draft I circulated.
>
> I think best not to make too many changes as we had the proposed text
> read into the record during the last call.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Kabani <kabani.asif at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Adam,
>
> I mean somethings on these lines, (May be), if possible to be incorporated
> as follows:
>
> "We Very strong support sustainability of IGF  with Multi stakeholder with
> better integration of regional and National IGFs.  Since last few years  we
> haven't found yet the right format of integrating the Regional / National
> IGF, this gives us the opportunity now based on the WSIS principles and
> demand in IGF meetings to put regional and national IGFs on the maps of IGF
> events in context."
>
> Sincerely
>
> Asif Kabani, MBA
>
> Connect @
>
> Before you print - Think about the ENVIRONMENT
>
>
>
> On 15 May 2013 15:27, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Asif,
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you are suggesting.  Could you send some
> text.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Kabani <kabani.asif at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Adam,
>
> Many thanks for sharing, suggestion that para 2 need re-written in contexts
> of IGF and WSIS principles, example Markus  Kummer, ISOC and Bill Graham,
> ICANN and other participants in WSIS 2013 this week also supported the
> National and Regional IGFs. Suggestion is that let IGF give the process and
> guidelines, your suggestion and process are much appreciated. The suggestion
> are my personal views on the subject.
>
> Sincerely
>
> @Kabaniasif
>
> Asif Kabani, MBA
>
> Connect @
>
> Before you print - Think about the ENVIRONMENT
>
>
>
> On 15 May 2013 12:42, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Unless there are any objections, I propose to sent the following text
> on national/regional IGFs as a contribution from us to the open
> consultation.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
> Proposal for a National and Regional IGF session, Bali IGF.
> Contribution from the APrIGF multi-stakeholder steering committee, for
> the IGF open consultation, 21 May 2013, Geneva.
>
>
> There should be a session in Bali to allow national/regional IGFs to
> share and discuss information about the outcomes of their meetings.
>
> We suggest that the coordinators of each national/regional activity
> are invited to join a coordinating group, which will work with the MAG
> and IGF Secretariat to arrange the session.
>
> The coordinating group should prepare a standard reporting format.
> Reports of each national/regional activity should be prepared in
> advance of the session and made available on the IGF website. The
> coordinating group will produce an initial analysis of the
> regional/national IGFs reports submitted. The analysis will be an
> input for the dialogue.  Each report can be briefly introduced during
> a "reporting-in" part of the session.
>
> We emphasize that the main purpose of the session should be to allow
> discussion between the respective national/regional activities.
> Reporting-in from the national/regional IGFs should be kept to a
> minimum. Discussion should seek to identify the commonality of views
> across the different regions/countries, and at the same time identify
> the unique elements that arise from each process.
>
> Based on the input reports, initial analysis and discussion, an
> outcome report identifying areas of commonality and difference should
> be prepared by the coordinating group as an output of the session. The
> outcome report will go beyond identification/comparison to provide a
> more substantive analysis; for example on common challenges faced,
> different/local interpretations of same topics, etc.
>
> Session features:  a substantive session that focuses on dialogue not
> reporting.  Written reports, to a pre-agreed format, required from
> each process must be submitted before the Bali IGF.  Brief
> reporting-in from each national/regional activity important.  Session
> outcome report to be prepared.
>
> END
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sylvia Cadena  |  Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net
> ISIF  Asia Information Society Innovation Fund
>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646
> Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
> http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia
>
> sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net
> skype: sylviacadena
> https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia
> http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia
> Twitter @ISIF_Asia
>
> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program