[governance] IGF workshops

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder,

On 6/15/07 5:21 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
 
> Bill
> 
> Do you want to do it only as giganet and any other partners you may be in
> contact with, or will like to explore IGC co-sponsorship. I mean, if we as
> IGC is going to do workshops, it of course will be with partners. And often
> other partner may play the key organizing etc role. I am only making a
> suggestion, it is of course up to the giganet group and others who are
> already planning to decide on their partnerships plan.

I assume that as with your effort on core resources from a commons
perspective, a number of people here are currently scrambling to put
together workshop proposals with varying configurations of like-minded
partners.  Same with me.  Given the tight time constraints for submissions
(and BTW the secretariat has just yesterday posted the format they want
http://www.intgovforum.org/wks_qest_r.htm ) and the pace and difficulty of
agreeing things at the caucus level, this is a rational response and what we
all did last year as well.  The alternative might be getting bogged down and
ending up with nothing, or with something that is not like what the
initiators really wanted to do.

Proposals are due two weeks from today.   What could we realistically expect
to do as a caucus in that time frame?  I would suggest two things.  First,
we could try to organize and agree some stuff from scratch.  I think the
best chance for success here would be a proposal on the role and mandate of
the IGF, which is a key issue of longstanding concern to many of us, and one
that ought not to require a lot of difficult negotiation over the precise
formulation since the issue is clear and we already have a descriptive
paragraph from the consultation.  Really, all one needs to do is repeat the
TA mandate and say we want to have a conversation about what this means and
whether and how to achieve it.  If we can't agree that in two weeks we're
really screwed.  As I said, I'd be happy to collaborate with others on this.
At the same time, others have expressed interest in caucus efforts related
to public policy principles and to access.  My sense is that these terms
mean different things to different people and the caucus could struggle to
sort out solid proposals in time, so I at least would be hesitant to try
pushing those boulders up the hill in two weeks.  Either way, we should try
to reach rapid closure on whether and which to propose and do it.

Second, the list could serve, as Karen suggests, as a clearinghouse.  It
would be good to know who's proposing what in order to identify
synergies/overlaps, facilitate co-sponsoring coalitions of the interested,
etc.  Right now, all we know is that I'm working on the DA thing and you're
working on the core resources/commons thing.   If others could just give a
head's up on what they're cooking, that'd whet our appetites and help us see
what collectively CS is putting on the table.  It would not mean that anyone
would be obligated to take on board too many cooks, just info sharing.

If in the days prior to the deadline, when we know what the menu looks like,
any of the initiators wanted to seek a quick caucus endorsement of what
they've assembled, they could do so.  If this didn't work out, then they'd
be covered and ready to submit anyway, because they already lined up
selected co-sponsors, speakers, and texts.  Additive, rather than
alternative.

BTW the DA WS would parallel a Giga panel on the same and offer synergies
(academics in one, hopefully practitioners in the other) so I thought I'd
redeploy a few sentences of the description rather than struggling to say
the same things differently, but it's not a "Giga WS."  We've never really
discussed whether Giga could/should sponsor IGF workshops.  My sense is that
it'd be best not to position Giga as a "stakeholder group" with a particular
orientation in this manner, and that Giga should be a neutral forum for the
presentation of academic work of all flavors.

Best,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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