[governance] IGF workshops

[Adam Peake]

Parminder: good suggestion.

None of the following has yet been discussed on 
the advisory group list, my opinion only:

My guess is demand for workshops will be higher 
this year -- IGF's better known and more will 
notice it's an opportunity (free) to put on a 
workshop in a quite prominent space.  Workshops 
will have an audience of between 200-300 people 
so are quite large events in their own right.

Last year all workshop proposals were accepted. 
The schedule was adjusted so this was possible 
(workshops held over lunch, which was not 
originally planned) A few on the same theme were 
asked to merge (but that's reasonable, yes?) 
Some that better met the criteria 
(multistakeholder organization, relevance to the 
main themes) were given a choice of times or 
perhaps a larger room, but all could be accepted.

If demand for workshops is greater than the 
number of available slots --even after merging of 
like themes-- then it will be necessary to reject 
some.  I think demand may well exceed supply. 
Most likely group to do this accepting/rejecting 
is the advisory group. And I suspect the first 
criteria for judging proposals will be if the 
workshop has a real multistakeholder organizing 
team behind it.  Proposals from the caucus will 
be good, certainly would show broad civil society 
support, but involving other stakeholders will be 
essential. Regional diversity also positive. 
Just my opinion.

I do not believe "controversial" topics will be 
rejected simply because some might consider them 
controversial.  Last year there were two workshop 
proposals on DNS related topics.  Both had 
multi-stakeholder organizers, they were accepted, 
and to the best of my memory during advisory 
group discussions neither were challenged at any 
time for any reason.

Working on details of criteria for workshops 
would have been the type of issue the advisory 
group discussed had it met in a closed session 
last month.  Just not easy to get into detail in 
an open session.  So the process is behind on 
issues such as this.

About the themes and number of proposals the 
caucus might work on.  The deadline is 30 June 
2007.  The caucus is not very good at reaching 
decisions.  I suggest that the three you suggest:

(1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions
(2) Global Internet policies Impacting Access, etc
(3) The Role and Mandate of the IGF.

will likely be more than we can manage.  If there 
is be competition for slots, solid proposals will 
be necessary.

Given Bill's comment that he's developing a 
proposal on development agenda and tieing it to 
giganet etc, I suggest the caucus focus on 1 and 
3.   It will be a lot of work for you and 
Vittorio to coordinate.

I wouldn't expand into Access etc.  Let CS groups 
expert on the area do a job without confusion of 
the caucus' "consensus".  And I think privacy 
safe with the coalition (Ralf Bendrath etc.)

But I am surprised you don't mention critical Internet resources.

Adam



At 10:21 AM +0530 6/15/07, Parminder wrote:
>Hi
>
>I want to re-state my proposal that IGC does some workshops at IGF. It will
>serve both to push our substantive agenda, and to enhance the profile of
>IGC. I had earlier proposed three themes for workshops. All these are from
>our agreed priorities for IGF agenda (as per our input to May IGF
>consultations).
>
>These are
>
>(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. 
>
>I am not sure we will be able to sponsor all three. But the third one - role
>and mandate of the IGF - was suggested by some as a workshop theme. It also
>becomes important in terms of financing IGF discussions on this list these
>last few days. I think we must try to organize this workshop on behalf of
>IGC, and find partners for it.
>
>We should also look at doing another workshop on access/ development agenda
>in IG - in view of repeated assertions that access is the most important
>issue. This depends on whether we choose to do one workshop or two.
>
>There isnt much time, and we need to first get an agreement here (which can
>be built over the agreement already reached on importance of these themes
>last month), then get partners and then get a workshop proposal done. We can
>also to try to this non-linearly, but still there isnt much time. I request
>inputs on this issue. Thanks
>
>Parminder
>
>________________________________________________
>Parminder Jeet Singh
>IT for Change, Bangalore
>Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
>Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
>www.ITforChange.net
>
____________________________________________________________
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