<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name="GENERATOR">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Milton,<br>
<br>
Your doubts about the new process are all very important and well
articulated in your email below. <br>
<br>
My understanding, though MAG did not go into the details of the issue,
is that the MAG is trying to make <br>
<br>
(1) workshops more relevant and focussed on key issues, rather than
less, an objective, I know, you share. To some extent, the attempt may
also be to get workshops more focussed towards issues that are
relatively more central of IGF's current agenda - which we all know is
somewhat politically negotiated within and outside the MAG. I know that
you will agree both to a more politically determined and a more
focussed set of activities at and through the IGF than otherwise.
However workshops are also a means of introducing new agenda into the
IGF and this aspect of the 'workshop' space remains important even in
the new scheme. <br>
<br>
(2) get different viewpoints and positions together at the same place
rather than different rooms, which again I know you do, in general,
support. <br>
<br>
However I suspect that you may see two problems here.<br>
<br>
(1) You may challenge the political authority and legitimacy of the MAG
to take this increased role. We will have to have a separate discussion
on this. However I do know that since you were always for an even
smaller MAG with clearer political accountabilities than a larger,
diffused and a rather powerless one, I suspect we may have some common
ground to agree here as well. <br>
<br>
(2) You are afraid that the open space of 'workshops' where any agenda
could be articulated may get crowded out, with MAG being able to push
its favored subjects even in the workshop space. In this context, my
feeling is that the MAG may not get too assertive in choosing workshops
and in advising mergers. I would think that all workshops with solid
substantive/ organizational/ participation basis will be accepted.
There may be some 'advice' from the MAG to consider merger, but I
would think that for any 'good organizer' it will relatively safe to
turn it down. On the other hand, the MAG filter can rather be used to
discourage and remove proposals, that have what you recognise as the
key problem in the workshops space - in your words, worksh<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ops</font><font color="#000000"
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> '<big><span
class="163521817-17032009"><font size="2"><big>that were </big></font></span></big></font><span
class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><big><font
color="#000000" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">thrown together
at the last minute
with no coherent theme and/or had unbalanced viewpoints or stakeholder
mixes".</font></big><br>
<br>
<big><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Your
fear that the MAG process may be used to make '</font></big></font></span><big><font
color="#000000" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><span
class="163521817-17032009"><font size="2"><big>Workshops become bland
and meaningless' is very important to keep in mind. You mention two,
related, aspects to this problem. In both cases I support your position
strongly and we should do out best through IGC interventions and
presence in MAG to make sure that MAG's processes in selecting and
advising mergers is informed of these positions. </big></font></span></font></big><br>
<br>
(1) The problem that many in the IGF arena have a (very) active
position against certain discussions (and not just certain positions)
is endemic, and needs to be constantly engaged with, and its impact
minimized.<br>
<br>
(2) A related problem, as shown by your IPv6 example, is that, if one
is not able to stop certain important global policy discussion through
obstructing at the agenda <br>
setting level, it is then done by mixing 'capacity building' and
implementation issues when core policy issues may be sought to be
discussed. As you argue, just because the general name/space of an
issue - IPv6, connectivity, CIRs etc - may be same or shared, it
doesn't mean that we can keep bringing very different 'aspects' of
the issue together in the same discussion, which just obstructs
meaningful discussions. <br>
<br>
If the IGF can somehow find a way across the above two problems, we
would then have made a huge move forward and be ready to discuss some
real global Internet policy issues which is the IGF's primary mandate
to discuss. At present, I can only say that this is a political
struggle and we keep trying our best. <br>
<br>
I have considered these issues you raise about the new format, and as
mentioned in my MAG meeting report in my email of 3rd March I support
it 'on the balance'. However we should strongly present our fears and
doubts and need for corresponding care in the MAG processes at the next
open consultations and the MAG meeting. It is only after the May
meeting the process of advising mergers etc will start.<br>
<br>
So, I hope you would develop proposals for the workshops IGP wants to
hold in the next IGF and submit them before the 15th of April. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
(The above is a mix of my impressions of MAG's intention and my
personal views. As I said MAG did not discuss the new format -
especially its pros and cons - in any great detail, and therefore I may
be wrong even while judging MAG's intention.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name="GENERATOR">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="163521817-17032009"><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Thanks for this very useful
clarification, Bertrand.</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">I want to take issue with some of the analysis behind it, but
in general I agree with the intent of the new approach and appreciate
your giving us clear advance notice of it. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">The problem with past workshops was NOT that proposers had
the ability to propose and execute "fully developed" proposals. Many of
the best and most productive workshops followed that partern. The
problem was that the Secretariat did not feel as if it was in a
position to discriminate between fully-developed proposals that were
executed well, and those that were thrown together at the last minute
with no coherent theme and/or had unbalanced viewpoints or stakeholder
mixes. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">The saving grace of this "anything goes" policy was that it
allowed a few applicants to put together high-quality Workshops that
were unfiltered and had a clear vision of what they were trying to do.
It also meant that for every one of those, there were one or two sloppy
and unbalanced ones. But people could vote with their feet, and they
did. Indeed, all of the IGP Workshops for the last three years have
been packed, because they had sharply defined themes, balanced
collections of panelists and dealt with real, substantive issues not
fluff and self-promotion.</font></span></div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">The clear and present danger from what you describe as the
new approach is that all proposals have to be run through the political
wringer of the MAG. This is a good way to make Workshops become bland
and meaningless, or, (worse) ensnare their proposers in months of
political negotiations with clueless or hostile partners. I have
first-hand knowledge of how this happened last time with the IPv6 main
session panel. Making the content of workshops into a collective
decision of the entire IGF is a sure-fire way to ensure that the
Workshops become as boring and useless as most of the main sessions
have been. Your new process seems to put the MAG at the center of
grouping proposals and selecting themes, and the whole point of the
Workshops was that it offered a free space outside of that. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">I hope that when you start grouping "theme" proposers
together, you do so with open eyes. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">That means: recognize, please, that for every pressing and
important topic in Internet governance, there is someone or some group
who would prefer that we not talk about it at all. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">That means: Do not throw together people who want to
undermine or prevent discussion of a topic with the people who really
want to discuss the issue, and expect them to work out a good program. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">That means: do not throw together people who want to talk
about related, but quite different things. (e.g., in the IPv6 panel
there were people who wanted simply to promote migration to IPv6, and
there were people who wanted to talk about the transitional problems
caused by the shortage of IPv4 addresses. Those two ideas were
fundamentally incompatible as topics, and we wasted lots of time trying
to reconcile them.) </font></span></div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="163521817-17032009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">In other words, up to now the Workshops, because they are
relatively free, have been the saving grace of the IGF. I hope that
doesn't get spoiled with the new approach. It could have disastrous
consequences for attendance at the next meeting. </font></span></div>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<p><font size="2">Milton Mueller<br>
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology<br>
------------------------------<br>
Internet Governance Project:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</a><br>
</font></p>
<div> </div>
<br>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us">
<hr tabindex="-1"> <font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
Bertrand de La Chapelle [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com">mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSIS Internet Governance Caucus<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [governance] About the IGF call for workshop proposals<br>
</font><br>
</div>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
A word of explanation on the call for workshops proposals issued by the
IGF secretariat, as it is a slightly different procedure that in the
previous years. <br>
<br>
During the February consultations and the MAG meeting, it appeared
clearly that the traditional method of asking people to propose fully
developed workshop proposals (complete with co-sponsors and potential
panelists) had two unexpected but damaging consequences :<br>
- several proposals on similar subjects were prepared separately with
great efforts and great commitment from proponents, <br>
- it became therefore particularly difficult to encourage them to merge
afterwards, as they became naturally strongly committed to their
specific approach<br>
<br>
The general result was in the first three years the abundance of
workshops that everybody recognizes as difficult to handle for the
participants. <br>
<br>
The process proposed this year is therefore a bit different, taking
advantage of the fact that we are starting a little bit earlier. The
objective is to encourage people to first submit themes rather than
full-fledged proposals, with arguments and reasons why the theme should
be addressed. This represents for all IGF participants an opportunity
to have an increased influence on the Agenda of the meeting itself (as
issues can be proposed by people who do not have the capacity to
organize a workshop themselves). It is also a way to facilitate
grouping different proposals together and encourage proponents to join
forces to co-organize one session instead of several in parallel. <br>
<br>
In Hyderabad, the community underscored that different issues have
different levels of "maturity" or "ripeness", and the MAG has basically
identified three categories that could correspond to different workshop
formats (what is below is my own formulation of the three categories) :<br>
- issues where people do not agree yet on the nature of the problem and
where a more complete picture needs to be drawn before trying to
identify solutions : such issues would benefit from expert panels,
laying out the different dimensions, <br>
- issues where people are clearly aware of the different aspects at
stake but disagree on the appropriate approach or objectives; these
would benefit from very interactive workshops with a lot of
participation from the room <br>
- issues where a basic agreement has emerged on what needs to be done
and where the challenge is to synergize concerted action among the
different concerned stakeholders; this category could benefit from
"roundtable formats" gathering the key actors involved in order to help
them distribute responsibilities and coordinate action. <br>
<br>
As the discussion in the IGC progresses, I felt it was important to
describe this new context. Several interesting issues have been raised
on the list so far and the IGC can play a very important role in
discussing a relatively extensive list of themes, and then seeing how
they could be grouped in clusters. This will help the work of the
Secretariat and the MAG immensely. . <br>
<br>
I hope these background elements will be useful. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
the Information Society<br>
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs<br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
____________________________________________
Roshni Nuggehalli
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (00-91-80) 4146 1055
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.ITforChange.net">www.ITforChange.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.IS-Watch.net">www.IS-Watch.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://India.IS-Watch.net">http://India.IS-Watch.net</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>