[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

[Adam Peake]

At 8:22 AM +0200 6/4/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>Fair questions, Izumi,
>
>You wrote : "Do we have a good mechanism to separate these two issues and
>proceed both? Or am I naive that we first need to resolve the process in
>order to  proceed to the substance?"
>
>My spontaneous answer is :
>- both issues (process/structure and 
>content/speakers) must be dealt with at the same 
>time, in a co-evolving manner , but nothing is a 
>prerequisite for discussing the speakers for Rio,


I wouldn't worry so much about speakers, instead 
as individuals (representatives of different 
expert groups and organizations) think about 
workshops they would like to organize.


>- as a matter of fact, the IGF process is an 
>issue that the IGF can discuss itself, and the 
>emerging "fifth theme", will necessarily evolve 
>towards that,
>- in terms of "mechanisms to separate the two 
>issues" (of process and substance), the first 
>method is to continue separate threads on this 
>list, the other one is to help those interested 
>to interact more closely on these topics.
>
>To echo Adam's comment, it may also be time to 
>make this discussion a bit more 
>multi-stakeholder. Although I know a certain 
>number of government representatives are 
>actually lurking on this list (and that's good), 
>they do not feel comfortable expressing 
>themselves.
>
>Would people be interested in a workshop in Rio 
>on these issues ? how could it be prepared ? 
>Could it have a more "open Forum format" to 
>engage as many participants as possible, rather 
>than a mere "panel" type ?
>


Parminder suggested the caucus might try to 
organize 3 workshops (as multi-stakeholder 
events) on the themes we had proposed as main 
sessions:

At 12:32 PM +0530 6/2/07, Parminder wrote:
>
>(1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions
>(2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the
>Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG
>(this can also build on the giganet session on a similar theme)
>(3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF
>


Would the 3rd be a fit with what we're discussing here.

To respond to Izumi's question about civil 
society trying to speak with a single voice, I 
think he's right to say we might not be able to 
do that. And I'd go further and say we shouldn't 
try.  Working on workshop proposals such as the 3 
Parminder suggested, that we already agree (to a 
degree) should be discussed in Rio, seems a good 
idea.  But we can't try to develop common 
positions/single voice.

Adam

____________________________________________________________
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