<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">I agree that plenaries should be held in a
manner that all can attend them. However, about making workshops and
their outcomes effective and impactful, I think it works backwards.
Make sure you take up specific and clear IG issues at each plenary with
some possibility and structure to take what comes out forward into
smaller committees or whatever to make some specific recommendations
from the IGF on that particular issue, with mechanisms both to
communicate these recs effectively to relevant policy bodies, and later
reviewing what happened about them (see earlier email exchanges on this
subject).<br>
<br>
If this happens the workshops will automatically, or with some
prodding, split into two kinds. One kind would be that would try to
contribute as much possible to what would happen in the plenary and
subsequently. These workshops would by themselves become very effective
and would get out relatively clearer outcomes. (The main thing to
ensure than would be, as alluded to by Katitza, to ensure that these
workshops are not captured and have enough diversity of views, and
there is enough diversity among workshops themselves). <br>
<br>
The other kind of workshops will be those which are kind of warming up
issues for later IGFs, or in general considering a larger ambit of IG
issues.<br>
<br>
So either all workshops can be help before plenaries start, or at least
all type 1 workshops above can be finished before the plenaries and
type 2 allowed to overlap with plenaries. This is not an ideal solution
since there are very interested type 2 workshops which many those also
wanted to focus on plenaries will like to attend. Parminder <br>
</font><br>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1296094618.30689.925.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 10:18 -0200, Graciela Selaimen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi, Wolfganfg and all,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the
two first days of the meeting.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I agree and have said the same. Something like this is common in other
Internet governance institutions. For example, in my region, the annual
APRICOT conference (see apricot.net) always commences with workshops.
Plenary sessions are only held afterwards, so as not to overlap and
compete with the workshops. The IGF will never make any progress while
the majority of participants don't even attend its plenary sessions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>