[governance] Main sessions @ IGF

[Adam Peake]

>Thanks for clarifying, Adam. A few minor remarks, and two questions:
>
>Adam Peake wrote:
>>While audience participation is very much desired,
>This formulation could upset people, as they will consider 
>themselves "participants", not "audience".
>
>>Long winded and out of context statements will mess things up. Some 
>>see a microphone and just feel the need to speak... whatever the 
>>subject.
>Ok, so people can actually speak, good to clarify this. I was afraid 
>when I read "audience". Then it is up to the moderators to harshly 
>cut off people who speak too long or out of context. I don't envy 
>them...


I don't remember the size of the main room, it's either 800 or 1200 
people.  But 800/1200, can't really be anything other than an 
"audience".  A few might say something, but not many. If 30-40 
different people had the opportunity to speak in 3 hours, is that a 
good target? (to few, too many?)

Workshops will hopefully offer some opportunity for people to get 
more involved.


>>Civil society has a reputation from earlier consultations for being 
>>particularly guilty of this (perhaps unjustly?)
>Justly, but only some folks from CS (which a lot of people 
>generalize from...).
>
>>That's where things are at the moment.  We have a draft list of 
>>names for each session.  The people themselves have not been told 
>>(so I can't tell the list.)
>So two weeks before the event you have not asked people if they can 
>sit on a major panel at a UN major conference? Wow. Good luck!


We know the people are going.  Most will have been approached at some 
point and asked informally if they'd be willing to join a panel.

Yes.  Things are a little behind... But it will be perfect!


>Two more things I'm curious about:
>
>1. Reports from the workshops: IIRC, in one of the older versions of 
>the programme there was a "rapporteur session" on the last day. Now 
>you only find a "chair's summing up" and a "taking stock" session 
>there. As someone who is chairing a workshop, I'd love to know how 
>to feed the outcomes back into the general discussion.


I don't know.  I will try to remember to ask.  But as a workshop 
organizer you can and should be asking stuff like this.


>2. "Dynamic coalitions" emerging from Athens: Is there any planned 
>mechanism for moving the discussions into this direction? It is one 
>of the most important aspects of the IGF that can make it different 
>from other conferences and ensure it becomes a process, not just an 
>annual chatter.


I don't know.  I hope the plaza space may help. I would like there to 
be a space where people organizing workshops could sit around 
"advertise" their event. be there so people who are interested in the 
workshop  topic can chat (before and after the workshop's held.)  And 
for people organizing workshop to get together among themselves.  I 
think the people who have taken the effort to put something on are 
the most likely to take the "dynamic coalition" idea forward.  Kind 
of self selection.

Again, you as a workshop organizer putting time and resources into 
this should be telling the secretariat what you want from the event, 
and advising them on how to achieve it.

Thanks,

Adam


>Thanks,
>
>Ralf
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance