Re: [kictanet] The Way Forward...my 2 bob... WAS: Re: Invitation: 2009 EA-IGF, 7-9 September 2009, Nairobi, Kenya
well, if the goal is to harmonise, why not have a regional one from the beginning, developed in a MSH fashion. Countries can accept or reject and negotiate according to their own agendas.
We want to follow the bottom up approach, so it is imperative that countries come with their views to the table.
?? I don't WANT to leave it to politicians alone ;-) No McTim, i don't - i am just reiterating that untill we have proper ground to form a working group/mailing list etc we can hang in there; I used the Politicians to present a group that is good-to-go
Regards, Douglas Onyango +256(0712)981329 If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the Problem. --- On Wed, 9/9/09, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] The Way Forward...my 2 bob... WAS: Re: Invitation: 2009 EA-IGF, 7-9 September 2009, Nairobi, Kenya To: "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas@yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 11:44 AM On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Douglas Onyango<ondouglas@yahoo.com> wrote:
McTim, I am with you on this.
But i wish to point out that the issue of interest
groups is rather tricky
to implement at an EA level at the moment. Rationale: Countries are still developing their national positions on various issues and asking them to debate this at a regional level would be rather premature.
well, if the goal is to harmonise, why not have a regional one from the beginning, developed in a MSH fashion. Countries can accept or reject and negotiate according to their own agendas.
On the flip side of the coin, i think the parts of
EA that has issues they
can deliberate on like the Parilamentarians are already convenig this afternoon - so on this front your concern is being addressed.
?? I don't WANT to leave it to politicians alone ;-)
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Douglas, On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango<ondouglas@yahoo.com> wrote:
well, if the goal is to harmonise, why not have a regional one from the beginning, developed in a MSH fashion. Countries can accept or reject and negotiate according to their own agendas.
We want to follow the bottom up approach, so it is imperative that countries come with their views to the table.
I would say it is people that should come together with their views, as I think individuals are at the bottom of the "bottom up", not nation states. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Hi, I very much enjoyed the EA-IGF, the process from online discussions through national IGFs and the regional meeting is by far the most progressive model of any of the national/regional IGFs taking place around the world. Different IGFs have different qualities, something I picked up from the Caribbean IGF a few weeks ago <http://www.ctu.int/internetgovernance> was a regional effort to develop an Internet governance policy framework. The framework document attempts to capture the key issues discussed in C-IGF meetings to date, and presents a guide of harmonised national and regional policies and best practices. The framework takes each issue, lists recommendations, priorities made by the C-IGFs on the issue, and identifies entities with responsibility for each issue. It is not a highly detailed document, but does its job in providing a useful guide. The EA-IGF is more sophisticated in terms of dialogue and multistakeholder contributions (the basic goals of the IGF process), but perhaps attempting to develop framework that's similar to, or follows the model of the C-IGF would be helpful. Particularly as something to ensure the dialogue between the countries continues from now and the time when the 2010 meeting process starts to roll. Very good to have seen many of you over the past few days. The EA-IGF has been excellent. Best, Adam
Douglas,
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango<ondouglas@yahoo.com> wrote:
well, if the goal is to harmonise, why not have a regional one from the beginning, developed in a MSH fashion. Countries can accept or reject and negotiate according to their own agendas.
We want to follow the bottom up approach, so it is imperative that countries come with their views to the table.
I would say it is people that should come together with their views, as I think individuals are at the bottom of the "bottom up", not nation states.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: ajp@glocom.ac.jp Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ajp%40glocom.ac.jp
participants (3)
-
Adam Peake -
Douglas Onyango -
McTim