<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 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>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks, Bertrand, </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>This is a very good explanation. I go through it below with
some responses but on the whole it does not sound as bad as I feared. If we can
avoid some obvious pitfalls that could emerge from such a process, it should be
worth a try. Read on....</FONT></SPAN></DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<UL>
<LI>preserving the capacity of participants to propose and organize
workshops on their topics of interest in a relatively unconstrained manner
is a critical element of the IGF : this bottom-up Agenda-setting is probably
one of the most precious features of this innovative experiment (it is in my
view anyway) <SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></LI></UL>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>And
mine....</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<UL>
<LI>at the same time, there is broad consensus on the desire to have fewer
events running in parallel, because people are torn and forced to make
difficult choices among things that interest them given the short duration
of the meeting <SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></LI></UL>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009></SPAN><SPAN
class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Ah well, some
people need to overcome their Agora-phobia. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<UL>
<LI>finally, some issues have probably reached a point of "ripeness" where
it is useful to avoid having several workshops on the same theme,<SPAN
class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></LI></UL>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Here, despite my half-serious, half-flippant response on the previous
point, I am in violent agreement. In general, I _liked_ the proposal to
separate themes in terms of their "ripeness/maturity." This could be quite a
step forward for the IGF.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It
will, however, be quite interesting to see how designations of ripeness
or maturity are made. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Perhaps we can learn from the Motion Picture Association, and we can
create a special category of "non-threatening, feelgood, immature" content
(like "green computing"), give it a "G" rating, and let the kids
go....while the adults go to R-rated critical internet resources
sessions.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<UL>
<LI>organized by different actors pushing only their own agenda, and to try
and encourage more direct interaction to move the issue forward; isn't it
Hamadoun Touré who likes to say : "from friction comes light" and I think I
remember you are often the one advocating "real debate" to sort out
positions :-) </LI></UL>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Indeed. This could be excellent, or it could break.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It
will be excellent if the MAG members and others involved are not afraid of
controversy and not afraid to let real representatives of actual conflicting
positions be represented. (Unfortunately that has not always been my
experience of MAG and IGF programming.) </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It
will fail if certain people insist, as they have repeatedly, on downplaying
controversies, pretending they don't exist, attempting to stifle those who air
them, etc. So the success or failure of this method will hinge on how this is
handled. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009></SPAN><SPAN
class=352320920-24032009></SPAN><SPAN
class=352320920-24032009> </SPAN><BR>That is the starting point. Hence
the proposal to call for expressions of interest on themes rather than
full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage (they will naturally come
later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of interest on various themes
but also allows people who do not intend to organize a workshop themselves to
indicate that they think a specific topic should be addressed. This is what I
did last year by putting an early placeholder in favor of a workshop on
"dimensions of cybersecurity" while indicating that I did not intend to
organize it myself. <SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>One
thing to bear in mind: you have significantly lowered the costs of proposing a
theme. In other words, people in my network could easily propose a dozen
viable and interesting themes, even though we only have the capacity to
produce/participate in 3 or 4. So, if you follow this route, be prepared
to be inundated with "theme" proposals, and be prepared for the risk that
serious proposers with serious ideas might be drowned out by the noise of
hundreds of casual proposers with superficial or half-baked ideas.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>How
will you sort them? </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Or will this be handled bottom up, via self
organization? I hope the latter! </FONT></SPAN><BR><BR>Furthermore, it allows
a preliminary debate on the formulation of workshop titles. The discussion on
this list on the theme "role of governments in IG" is a perfect example.
Instead of having two workshops in parallel, one organized by governments to
explain whay they should have more say and the other one by the IGC to explain
why CS should have more say, wouldn't it be better to have a single one on the
"role of the different stakeholders" ? <SPAN
class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Maybe. Certainly any WS on any topic should include all stakeholder
groups. But what if one group wants to have a general discussion
of stakeholder roles, and the other wants to focus on the more narrow
context of how governments fit into ICANN? If I were in the position of
proposing a WS on that topic, I would strongly prefer to place it in a more
concrete context (i.e., ICANN/JPA, GAC) because then we actually know
what we are talking about, and what reforms might come from it, rather
than having a general and philosophical discussion. However, I would not be
opposed to letting other people talk in more general
terms. </FONT></SPAN><BR><BR>The IGF is a unique space for dialogue
(and/or debate) among people with different viewpoints. It should not result
in small groups of like-minded people agreeing among themselves in parallel
rooms. <SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN>The "silo" effect is as bad in IGF as it is in
ICANN. Rather than forcing people into "MAG-defined groups", it is just an
attempt at facilitating early interaction among people with common issues of
interest or concern. And yes, they may have "conflicting views or interests";
but isn't this what the IGF should be about too ?<SPAN
class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Here
we are in complete agreement! The trick is to preserve the diverse viewpoints
when you merge themes into one. The danger is that we will homogenize rather
than bring the divergent viewpoints into the same room for strategic
interactions. It will not be easy, but I completely agree it needs to be
done.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>When
I referred to "conflicting agendas" in my original message, I was not
referring to different policy views. I was referring to people with
incompatible notions of what a Workshop should cover. e.g., if one person
wants to link talk about censorship threats to discussions of child protection
and another wants to pretend that child protection measures should never be
burdened with concerns about censorship, you have a problem, unless both
parties understand clearly that the whole point of the WS is to bring those
two together. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>T<SPAN
class=352320920-24032009>he MAG needs to make it clear that this method is
motivated by an ethic of encouraging dialogue among disagreeing viewpoints,
and that efforts to exclude viewpoints that are not liked by one group, or to
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=352320920-24032009>appoint biased moderators or unbalanced
panels (e.g., putting 5 representatives of ICANN, RIRs, etc on a panel with
one token "critic") will not be tolerated. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV></SPAN><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>However, this should obviously not limit the possibility for a group of
like-minded people who believe a certain angle on a given issue should be
given more visibility to gather at the IGF and present their viewpoint to the
community. Flexibility and diversity is key here and the guiding principle in
chosing formats and composition of workshops should be what kind of outcomes
can be expected. <SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=352320920-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Great. this is reassuring. An escape valve in cases where the new model
does not
work. </FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>