[governance] Main sessions @ IGF

[Vittorio Bertola]

Adam Peake ha scritto:
> 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?)

Personally, I'd be to let "ordinary" people speak as much as possible, 
and instead strongly limit their time (for example, with a giant visible 
countdown clock on the screen...) and perhaps also the topics. For 
example, you could accept two types of interventions:
- questions or comments to the panel
- flagging issues for subsequent discussion

I think that the second part is important, even if there is no time to 
discuss everything in Athens, I should be able to pick the mike and say, 
hey, I have this issue, does anyone else have it? can we meet later and 
work together on it? perhaps through a "dynamic coalition"?

People should at least be able to put their issues into a final, 
summarized list of "issues that were raised at the IGF".

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

It might be a good idea, but then, they should be conceived as an 
integral part of the Forum. Which means, for example, that their 
conclusions should be part of the official Forum results... but then, 
you'll have the problem of all the people who could not attend that 
particular workshop and yet had an opinion on the matter. Not easy to solve.

> 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!

Good luck :-)

> 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.

I'm writing to Markus...

>> 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.

I agree. At the same time, as someone else was saying, there needs to be 
some kind of formal recognition of these efforts, otherwise it will just 
be wasted time, and otherwise it would just be enough to ignore them to 
make efforts on controversial matters fail.

There were proposals on processes to create ongoing, online IGF WGs, one 
year ago (at least, I'm sure I had one). Sooner or later they should get 
out of the closet - sooner is better.

Which is the appropriate session for this discussion? Monday afternoon? 
Thursday morning?
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
____________________________________________________________
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