The Final version was v5, sent to this list.<div>However it is just CFP not program itself, or do you mean the latest program?</div><div>That was sent by Peng Hwa in Word format.</div><div>We need to wait for May 24 deadline to acceptore proposals and then shape them to final as as evolving way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Izumi <span></span><br><br>2012$BG/(B5$B7n(B13$BF|F|MKF|(B Wu Kuo <a href="mailto:kuoweiwu@gmail.com">kuoweiwu@gmail.com</a>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I just reply PengHwa's email. Where is the final version? or we still modify it?<br>
<br>
:-)<br>
<br>
Kuo Wu<br>
<br>
Hong Xue $B1w(B 2012/5/13 $B>e8a(B8:46 $BUmF;!'(B<br>
<br>
> It seems the discussions at the conference calls were not got through<br>
> to the community, neither were the proposals circulated to the list.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Wu Kuo <<a>kuoweiwu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Here is my suggestion:<br>
>><br>
>> 1. For those countries running "local IGF in their societies", the topic should be "how to raise the community to recognize the importance of IGF for their society"? In stead of "sequential reports" (and I think, that is not that many). I can talk about "what happen in Taiwan now" (although not much, the society focus on very local political issue than international global issue recently).<br>
>><br>
>> 2. Such as "ICT for disaster", Japan already prepare to give a talk and their action recently. Hopefully, there are some people willing to join the discussion to share their experience. I know one person in Taiwan did a lot of work in this issue when Taiwan had a big flooding killing thousand people, and damaging hundreds of twins and people on Aug. 8th, 2009. I try to get him to join the session.<br>
>><br>
>> 3. "Confrontation on Internet", which we can have some one to describe SOPA/PIPA in US congress, some one talk about the development on ACTA in EC, and some one talk about the topic can be happened in IGF/Baku (Paul might be a good person, since he is a member of MAG). As I know, Dr. William Drake is coming to the APrIGF, he is a wright person to talk about the possible political development in WCIT. If necessary, I can be the moderator if no one want to be. :-)<br>
>><br>
>> 4. Then we have to have a closing session to summary up what we have in this meeting. Peng Hwa is the best person to do that and work it out. So he can continue to report it in IGF/Baku for us.<br>
>><br>
>> Kuo Wu<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) $B1w(B 2012/5/12 $B2<8a(B5:23 $BUmF;!'(B<br>
>><br>
>>> Agreed too. An issues-based panel would be more interesting than<br>
>>> sequential reporting.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The session would need a more pro-active and engaged panel chair.<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 12/5/12 3:30 PM, "Paul Wilson" <<a>pwilson@apnic.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> I agree, a session on country IGF activities would be a good thing. Can<br>
>>>> we find out more precisely how many of those there will be?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I think the structure of the session deserves some thought - because the<br>
>>>> least interesting is to have a series of sequential free-form reports,<br>
>>>> without preparation or structure. Perhaps a panel-format with discussion<br>
>>>> organised by theme?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Maybe we could have discussion not only of the content but of the form<br>
>>>> and functioning of the IGF itself - i.e. gathering views on ongoing<br>
>>>> direction/improvement of the event, and the whole "IGF system" such as it<br>
>>>> is.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> If this is planned in advance clearly enough, then that could also inform<br>
>>>> the national processes (or at least the panelists) in advance of the<br>
>>>> meetings themselves (those that are yet to happen).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> paul<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 12/05/2012, at 11:01 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Very good idea, Keith and Kuo Wu.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Izumi<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 2012$BG/(B5$B7n(B12$BF|EZMKF|(B Keith Davidson <a>keith@internetnz.net.nz</a>:<br>
>>>>> Fully agree with these comments Kuo Wu. If we could have a "reporting in<br>
>>>>> session" from any countries and territories who have issues to raise. I<br>
>>>>> would think it would only be 5 minutes per country or per "in-country<br>
>>>>> IGF" - raising only the 3 or 4 most significant issues for the local<br>
>>>>> Internet community?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Cheers<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Keith<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 11/05/2012 5:07 p.m., Wu Kuo wrote:<br>
>>>>>> My comment is : It is fine for those countries have its' own IGF to<br>
>>>>> report their concern and comment. But it is al</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br> >> Izumi Aizu <<<br>Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, <br>
Japan<br><a href="http://www.anr.org" target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br><br>