[governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva

[Carlos Afonso]

That remark was not Milton's, it was mine. The proposal to have 
moderators and not "showmen" is tied to the idea of a process between 
IGF meetings in which we have far more precise discussion themes defined 
and the organized input of specialists (from all sectors) beforehand, so 
we arrive at the meeting with a far better notion of the issues to be 
discussed (refined) under each theme. A new idea has emerged in the MAG 
here in Geneva -- that we have in the plenary meetings the presentation 
of a few "best practices", which would be a reference for converging the 
discussions to conclusions, as selected by the preparatory process just 
indicated.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
> Milton's remark on  "We need thematic specialists as
> moderators, not "crowd handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the
> purpose here was to keep true debate dissolved into generalities"   to
> me is alarmist.
> A TV Host {Journalist} bases his follow up questions on possible feed
> backs from the populace so as to render participation inclusive.
> He/she makes sure that answers obtained respond to a certain general
> appeal - the reasons for such meetings. The situation become different
> when sessions are moderated by "thematic specialists", in this case,
> discussions are squared and full of "thematic specialists dogma" that
> transform other participamts into strangers. I think that we should
> not arrive at a situation where people are invited to stay as zombies
> while "speciaists" have their day.
> BTW no body stops a "thematic specialist" from refocusing a debate
> when he/she notice that a moderator is taking the discussion towards a
> desert. My advise is that instead of semonising the host, specialists
> should henceforth play the proper watch dog, the reasons why ther are
> invited into many sessions
> 
> Nyangkwe
> 
> 
> On 2/12/07, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:
>> Parminder wrote:
>> > My point of departure for this is the strong sense that the existing
>> > governance structure of IGF has taken a certain attitude (which is 
>> very very
>> > political, in my view, and not just administrative though that's how 
>> it may
>> > be passed off) that IGF is to be, more or less, an annual IG 
>> conference.
>> > George Sadowsky's comments (and he is a special advisor to the 
>> chair) are
>> > quite forthright on this issue, and he has cited the 'general 
>> feeling' in
>> > the IGF governance structure and not just his own views.
>> >
>> > To substantiate his assertion, one only has to note the drift of the
>> > synthesis paper prepared by the IGF for this meeting. While the 
>> paper does a
>> > good work of putting different views together, it does betray the 
>> mind of
>> > the present IGF governance structure on this issue(As Jeremy has 
>> noted).
>> > Very strangely, it seems to, in a way, give legitimacy to the view 
>> that the
>> > Tunis agenda mandated only a 'discussion forum' task for IGF, and 
>> anything
>> > else will mean going beyond the Tunis agenda.
>>
>> The writing was on the world earlier than that.  I have just been going
>> back over the transcripts of the last public consultations, and I came
>> across this gem of an exchange between Brazil and Nitin Desai from May:
>>
>> BRAZIL: Even though we are not going to take decisions in the forum ---
>> that's why we are calling it a forum --- we can have recommendations.
>> ... Non-binding recommendations, but it would be recommendations ... we
>> are going to send back, I suppose, to the Secretary-General of the
>> United Nations, and then these recommendations can be delivered to
>> specific bodies that takes decisions on matters. Then my suggestion, Mr
>> Chairman, then we have ... panels, groups, study groups in between, as
>> many as we want, as we decide, as the group decides. Each one producing
>> recommendations on a consensus basis. Of course there will be no votes.
>> Recommendations goes back to the last plenary, and then we approve, and
>> we are ready to go ....
>>
>> DESAI: Consensus between 500 participants from multiple sectors groups.
>> I will put it to the advisory group. It's an interesting thought. I will
>> put it to them and see how they feel about it.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> 
> 

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

____________________________________________________________
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