Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits

[William Drake]

Hi again

On Oct 2, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 02/10/2012, at 7:45 PM, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:
> 
>> *There's an asymmetry in the time devoted to the two statements.  Day 2 has two 1:45 hr and one 1 hr. sessions on principles, whereas Day has only two 1:45 hr sessions on WCIT.  I don't think the WCIT one will be easier and take less time, especially as we'll be making an intervention in a treaty negotiation where our views are really not all that welcome or valued.  So I think it ought to get the same amount of time as the principles effort.
> 
> Thankfully you and Norbert have, independently it seems, given much the same feedback.  So yes, let's move the EC session to the Sunday - good idea.  Check the pad again tomorrow - I'll hold off making the change until then just in case there is other feedback to integrate.

Although I didn't quite take Norbert's point about the principles declaration not needing to be finished.  Again, we will be talking about principles in the Taking Stock main session.  We will be reviewing the various principles initiatives undertaken by IGOs etc. and linking these to the IGF and its future role. Trying to line up good government participants to draw their peers' attention.   I would have thought that a freshly produced statement from stakeholders would have provided a usefully complementary input, and way to bring the whole BB enterprise to wider attendees' attention.  Potentially booting on the principles declaration in order to have yet another EC discussion on top of the full day after plus the EuroComm thing seems an odd choice to me, but if that's what folks want to do, ok.

I should add that we will be talking about WCIT and the ITRs both in my workshop on Day 1 and the CIR Main Session on Day 2.  So in a parallel way, a BB statement could be input to those discussions.
> 
>> *Again, I wonder about the need for panelists in the book ends.  We're going to be doing plenty of listening to panelists in Baku for five days already.  Canned presentations from/to people who've been talking to each other about all this stuff for years doesn't seem as value-adding to me as open group dialogue with a facilitator per session.
> 
> There wasn't, however, much support in the poll for eliminating panelists.  Whilst the IGF alumni have been talking to each other for years, there will be some new faces in Baku.

Yes, just saw the subscriber list, would be good to hear from some non-usual suspects on all this :-)

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/f537e7fe/attachment.htm>