[governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please

[Adam Peake]

>Adam Peake ha scritto:
>>Anyone have thoughts for a contribution to the stocktaking exercise?
>
>Here they are, just a few immediate ones.
>
>>One comment from a MAG point of view -- it was nice to be able to 
>>accept all the workshop proposals for Athens.  I don't think the 
>>MAG would have been good at deciding which to keep and which not. 
>>More time this year, should be able to design a better, clearer 
>>program. Without workshops, it starts to look very much like a dull 
>>conference.
>
>And let's ensure there's time to discuss proposals by the coalitions.


Agreed.  I would like to see them as an important element. (if the 
coalitions are actually doing something... if I announce a coalition 
and do nothing I don't merit a place or space more than any other 
person)


>>No more 3 hour panels.
>
>...but? I agree they'd be shorter though. I didn't like the idea of 
>a journalist being the one to decide who gets to speak and who 
>doesn't, based on, well, how spectacular that intervention would 
>look to him. Or, if you want to have TV-oriented sessions, make them 
>shorter and do not let them take over the entire four days.


Actually that wasn't quite how it happened.  The questions were 
passed to 3 or 4 members of the MAG (usually a mix of stakeholders) 
and we tried to build them in piles on the same subject. Passed ones 
that were relevant to the topic then under discussion to the 
moderator, kept others back for later.  We tried to move the 
moderator on if they got stuck, introduce new topics, etc.  Sometimes 
it worked sometimes it didn't. Not an easy style. Of course 
moderators had a lot of discretion, but they weren't filters in the 
way you seem to think.

A good suggestion would be to try different formats.  And as Jeanette 
mentions, "hard talk" is probably an awkward format for some cultures.

And some moderators got very little briefing on issues or on what we 
expected (we being MAG.)  Things would work better with more time and 
hindsight.


>>I thought the format generally worked, though moderators need 
>>more/better briefing.
>
>Especially, moderators should be given a hard threshold so that at 
>least half of the panel is allotted to debate (meaning with the 
>audience, not just among panelists). Too many workshops ended up 
>being showcases for this or that institution or program, and then 
>there'd be no time to say  anything else.
>
>>  Keep IG for development.
>
>...as long as this doesn't mean that we can't discuss net 
>neutrality, IPR, trusted computing and other themes that are mainly 
>relevant to the geek community rather than to the development one :)


Of course.  A dark small room somewhere in the basement.  Good 
connectivity, coke [drink], no aircon.

I would like to keep the process as open to all discussions as 
possible.  But some clearly want fewer workshops and less parallel 
sessions.  Can't have open bottom up, and a controlled agenda. What's 
the answer?  (BoFs?)  There will be physical restrictions, as there 
were in Athens, the meeting space will be a fixed number of rooms in 
a hotel (I think the Brazilians have offered a hotel.)


>>Access as a main theme.  Capacity building as a theme rather than 
>>cross cutting.
>
>>  Revisit para 71 for missed issues.
>
>This is really important. Where were IPR, consumer rights etc?


I was thinking more of some of the principles.  But I guess so, yes.


>  > Internet resources
>>("ICANN") should be discussed.
>
>On this specific point, we should be aware that there is going to be 
>a hard contraposition (perhaps the hardest around) between those 
>countries who really want ICANN discussed in Rio, and those 
>countries that really do not want ICANN discussed in Rio, and want 
>to discuss it in the "enhanced cooperation" process instead.
>
>I'm not sure that we'd want to marry either side too strongly; I'd 
>personally be happy by restating that civil society wants to be 
>involved in this wherever it happens, as we are now about to tell 
>Nitin in writing.


I understand workshops that discussed the root server, etc were 
overflowing (It would be good to know details of all the ICANN 
related workshops. Only the zone management workshop summary on the 
web, I thought more workshops than that, 3 or 4?)  Seems a good 
indication that these are issues people are interested in.  My 
concern is ICANN and related issues tend to suck the air from other 
discussions.  Internet resources, the "narrow" Internet governance 
issues, shouldn't be ignored, but they also shouldn't dominate.

Adam



>  > Openness, Security, Diversity are good
>>themes.  Emerging issues needs completely rethinking.
>
>Agree, but I don't like freedom seen as a subset of openness. If you 
>expand the number of themes, then you need to add a specific theme 
>on freedom and human rights, while focusing openness on, say, access 
>to information, open standards, free software etc.
>
>Ciao,
>--
>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