From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Thu Nov  2 10:42:20 2006
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:42:20 +0200
Subject: [Plenary] IGF community Web site
Message-ID: <454A11DC.5010203@Malcolm.id.au>

Welcome to those who have recently joined this list.  Please encourage 
anyone else you know who was at the first IGF meeting, or who 
participated remotely, or who intends to be involved at Rio, to join as 
well.  Please particularly encourage those who are from government or 
the private sector to join - because that is the main difference between 
this list and the IGC and WSIS-Plenary lists: that it is for all four 
stakeholder groups.

You all know about the igf2006.info Web site which Kieren McCarthy and I 
set up for lack of anything similar being forthcoming from the 
Secretariat.  My questions to this list are:

(a) Would anyone else like to be made an administrator of this
     site, to improve and add to it to a greater extent than
     they can as an ordinary user?

(b) What domain should we move it to so that its URL doesn't
     have to move every year?

(c) Where should we host it?  We started off on some cheap Web
     space but the site quickly grew too large, and in the end
     even the United Nations' Web server suffered a notorious
     episode of down time.

(d) Do civil society people want to use this site as their site
     for coordinating civil society activities related to the IGF?

(e) What worked for you on the site this year and what didn't?

(f) Should we ask the Secretariat to move anything from the
     official site onto our community site?  I'm thinking of
     things like, most obviously, its discussion boards which
     are a bit redundant and were hardly used, and maybe less
     obviously, things like "Related Activities", "Media" and
     perhaps even "Contributions".

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'



From nne75 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 13:08:26 2006
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:08:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Plenary] IGF community Web site
Message-ID: <20061102180826.95102.qmail@web50213.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Jeremy, all

Have you sent this request to Kummer himself at the IGF?
I am also copying other groups that may want to take a look at http://igf2006.intgovforum.org to see if there is anything that can be done.

Best

Nnenna


----- Original Message ----
From: Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
To: plenary at intgovforum.org
Cc: Mary Rundle <mrundle at cyber.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2006 3:42:20 PM
Subject: [Plenary] IGF community Web site


Welcome to those who have recently joined this list.  Please encourage 
anyone else you know who was at the first IGF meeting, or who 
participated remotely, or who intends to be involved at Rio, to join as 
well.  Please particularly encourage those who are from government or 
the private sector to join - because that is the main difference between 
this list and the IGC and WSIS-Plenary lists: that it is for all four 
stakeholder groups.

You all know about the igf2006.info Web site which Kieren McCarthy and I 
set up for lack of anything similar being forthcoming from the 
Secretariat.  My questions to this list are:

(a) Would anyone else like to be made an administrator of this
     site, to improve and add to it to a greater extent than
     they can as an ordinary user?

(b) What domain should we move it to so that its URL doesn't
     have to move every year?

(c) Where should we host it?  We started off on some cheap Web
     space but the site quickly grew too large, and in the end
     even the United Nations' Web server suffered a notorious
     episode of down time.

(d) Do civil society people want to use this site as their site
     for coordinating civil society activities related to the IGF?

(e) What worked for you on the site this year and what didn't?

(f) Should we ask the Secretariat to move anything from the
     official site onto our community site?  I'm thinking of
     things like, most obviously, its discussion boards which
     are a bit redundant and were hardly used, and maybe less
     obviously, things like "Related Activities", "Media" and
     perhaps even "Contributions".

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/plenary_intgovforum.org/attachments/20061102/301c7c4a/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Fri Nov 17 01:24:54 2006
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:24:54 +0800
Subject: [Plenary] IGF community Web site
In-Reply-To: <455D4439.2080409@gmail.com>
References: <454A11DC.5010203@Malcolm.id.au> <455D4439.2080409@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <455D55B6.3070504@Malcolm.id.au>

Rajnesh D. Singh wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> Unfortunately I did not have time to come and find you in Athens - had 
> too many things on.
> 
> (a) I am happy to pitch in if needed. Most of my sites run Drupal (but I 
> don't consider myself an expert though).

Thanks.  Did you see our draft letter to the Secretariat on one of the 
other lists?  If not, see the bottom of this email.  Let us know if you 
would like to add your name to it.

> (b) igf.info?

Logical, but we'll see if we can get everything under intgovforum.org 
too, which would be ideal.

> (c) I can perhaps see if someone from the ISOC community is willing to 
> donate space/bandwidth.
>       There were some offers made for other purposes, but perhaps I can 
> convince someone to
>       do this for the "real world" IGF site ;-)         Let me know if 
> you want me to pursue this.

We may well do, thanks - there is one other possibility too.  In both 
cases we will probably wait to see what the Secretariat says to the 
letter first.

> (e) There was some confusion on navigation

Yes, I'm used to using WebGUI CMS which is a bit more flexible than 
Drupal as far as customising your navigation system.

> (f) Yes, if they are able and willing I suppose. Another thought would 
> be the activities of the "Dynamic Coalitions"?

Absolutely - the letter now covers this:

--- DRAFT LETTER BEGINS ---

Dear IGF Secretariat,

Congratulations again on the tremendous success of the first meeting of 
the Internet Governance Forum in Athens.

Even though it was only a few weeks ago, our thoughts have already 
turned to the meeting scheduled for November 2007 in Rio de Janeiro, and 
this email will, we hope, serve as a useful start point in discussions 
for how we can make the 2007 IGF meeting even more of a success.

In particular, we would like to concern ourselves with the online 
element of the IGF, by which we mean the information, interaction and 
collaboration achieved both before and during the meeting, as well as 
the explicit intentions of many groups at the IGF to use the Internet 
itself to help prepare for the next IGF.

One of the areas that can certainly be improved upon is an online 
presence that acts as an authoritative source of information about the 
Rio meeting, as well as promote the IGF as a venue, and facilitate 
multi-stakeholder discussion.

We would argue that the system in place for the Athens meeting, where 
there were three websites - a host site, an official IGF site, and an 
unofficial collaboration site - was a good starting point but led to 
some degree of confusion and can be improved upon in time for the Rio 
meeting.

There is a risk that since important information has a tendency to 
change rapidly during this type of meeting, that the updating of such 
information (and its replication across several sites) can mean valuable 
time, effort and resources are spent unnecessarily maintaining several 
stores of data. In consequence, we would like to discuss ways in which 
the most can be made out of pooled resources. In many respects such an 
effort would mirror the very multi-stakeholder collaboration that has 
become the IGF's hallmark.

Our current feeling is that the optimal solution would be to settle upon 
a single website, or perhaps more accurately, a single Internet address.
Thanks to recent advances in Internet technology, it is now extremely 
simple and cost-effective to allow multiple users to work on different 
areas of a single website, with each area controlled by a different 
person, and each able to radically change the approach, content and 
appearance according to their particular needs.

There are numerous advantages to this approach, not least that an 
outsider observer would only have to access a single Internet domain to 
find all the information they need. Those working within the space would 
also benefit from a sense of collaborative achievement, and since all 
the information would ultimately be contained on the same space and the 
same server, opportunities for the data itself to draw links would be 
massively enhanced.

Other benefits include the fact that information could be more rapidly, 
and universally, adjusted, lifting the burden off one individual to keep
permanently up-to-date. Equally, with areas outside someone's specific 
field being dealt with by that area's best representative, it gives 
everyone the opportunity to concentrate on where they excel, with the 
net effect that better and more accurate information will be produced 
across the board. This process may also have the beneficial effect of 
attracting experts from under-represented fields to help contribute, 
hugely increasing the value of such a site in terms of information 
resources and credibility.

We feel sure that a new platform can be developed along these lines, but 
it will require some discussion among all those involved so everyone can 
be sure of the others' concerns and needs, and to ensure they are 
adequately addressed. Thanks to the flexibility of Internet technology 
we believe it is entirely possible that all issues can be dealt with, 
making such discussion all the more worthwhile since it can be virtually 
assured of a positive outcome. In the meantime of course, the value of 
holding such discussions could prove immeasurably valuable for future 
communication between stakeholders.

It is worth stressing that under the scheme broadly envisaged above, it
would still be possible for the Secretariat and the host country's
government to maintain exclusive control of particular sections of the 
site which are to contain official information. This could be branded in 
whatever way was deemed desirable to draw a clear distinction between it 
and other areas of the site. At the same time, both the Secretariat and 
the host government would benefit from the legion of volunteers that 
would take menial and uncontroversial tasks off their hands.

Those signed below would like to express our resolve in helping this 
process get on its feet and take it forward. We believe such a process 
would be incredibly worthwhile and have a broad positive impact across 
all stakeholders and on the IGF itself.

There are a number of issues to be tackled, not least the question of
hosting such a site (although business would appear to be a good 
starting point), but also that of agreeing a URL and what the basic 
approach should be when allocating authority. And there is of course the 
issue of ensuring that all those interested in such a proposal are made 
aware of discussions before they happen.

At this stage, however, we ask only that you consider the proposal and 
get back with your considerations and concerns.

Yours sincerely,

--- DRAFT LETTER ENDS ---

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'



From rajnesh.singh at gmail.com  Fri Nov 17 01:53:13 2006
From: rajnesh.singh at gmail.com (Rajnesh D. Singh)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:53:13 +1200
Subject: [Plenary] IGF community Web site
In-Reply-To: <455D55B6.3070504@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <454A11DC.5010203@Malcolm.id.au> <455D4439.2080409@gmail.com>
	<455D55B6.3070504@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <455D5C59.7050209@gmail.com>

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> Thanks.  Did you see our draft letter to the Secretariat on one of the 
> other lists?  If not, see the bottom of this email.  Let us know if 
> you would like to add your name to it.
>
No, I did not and yes you can add my name to it.


-- 

Kind regards,

Rajnesh D. Singh

COO, PATARA  www.patarapacific.com
Chairman, Pacific Islands Chapter, Internet Society  www.picisoc.org
President, IPv6 Forum Pacific Islands  www.ipv6forumpacific.org
Director, Pacific Internet Technology Centre  www.pacificit.org

Read my ramblings at http://singh-a-blog.blogspot.com/