[governance] IGF workshops - more time is needed

[Adam Peake]

At 11:33 AM +0530 6/16/07, Parminder wrote:
>Adam (and other CS members of the MAG)
>
>I think that the time given for submitting proposals is too little,
>especially when one has to get partners from different stakeholder groups,
>which would mean first seeking partners, then collaborating on proposal text
>and so on. I think there is no need to have people rush it, by giving around
>3 weeks to bring full proposals to the table. Even if this serves to keep
>the number of workshops manageable - though I am not alleging that is the
>motive here.



This goes to point in my last email (apologies, I 
didn't see the caucus list cc'd on the to line, 
wouldn't have changed anything I said --except 
about adding Vittorio to the thread-- but I would 
have written more) that the coordinators should 
be talking to the secretariat. I don't know if 
you are in regular contact with Markus but you 
should be:  both seeking information and offering 
advice and help. All the issues you have raised 
here could and should be raised direct with him 
as soon as you and Vittorio feel they could be a 
problem for CS. It's what Jeanette and I did 
frequently.

You don't have to demand anything, and suggesting 
that a process has been decided for some 
inappropriate purpose (to keep workshops 
manageable) isn't very responsible. Please 
explain the problems, offer solutions and seek 
his advice.


>This works against new groups, and new partnerships, organizing workshops.
>Most CS groups are just about learning about the workshop call and even in
>this age of digital communications - these calls take time in moving away
>from the centre towards relative peripheries. I just now saw the call for
>IGF workshops put out in the WSIS Disability Causus, inviting ideas.


May 25 Robin made an announcement about workshops 
to this list as soon as they were mentioned 
during the meeting in Geneva, news for posted on 
the IGF site shortly after (saying more details 
in mid June, with the deadline end of June) and I 
sent a follow-up note on may 27.  There were 
people from the PWD caucus in the IGF meeting. 
Why have they only passed on information now? 
And did people start work on workshops after 
Robin's note, or wait until last week.

As Jeanette mentioned the shorter time scale is a 
response to feedback from workshop organizers 
that they needed more time after having their 
workshop confirmed to make arrangements. Yes it 
is short.   And more worrying the way it has been 
handled does favor groups very close to the 
process. But again, a job of the coordinators is 
surely to coordinate with other caucus and WG?


>What
>we will have, in such short time, is the usual suspects in usual
>combinations, and that's really against the main principles and ideals of
>IGF. The idea is to get different kinds of people in, and different kinds
>talking to each other (as Nitin keeps saying). This central objective is
>defeated by giving such a short notice for completing workshop proposals.
>This also works against less- resourced and less- connected people and
>groups. 
>
>I think we should move the deadline at least to July 15th. I see no great
>reason for sticking to this timeline. I request CS MAG members to
>communicate this request to the MAG and the secretariat. Others may also
>give their views on this, and if others agree, it can be communicated on
>behalf of 'some CS members'.


I think you as coordinators should be 
communicating this message and you do not need to 
ask the caucus when you want to have a 
conversation with the secretariat.

I am not disagreeing with asking for an 
extension, and like Jeanette would be happy to 
take it to the advisory group list (other 
stakeholders may feel the same), but you should 
carry the main message to the secretariat and 
passing on information back to the caucus.

Thanks,

Adam



>This appeal comes directly from the problems being faced with some CS groups
>in which I am involved, in terms of the required time, in reaching out to
>new partners for some activities that we want to organize. And when I
>thought of it I could see that most/many CS groups must be facing this
>problem.
>
>Now, if the number of workshops goes beyond what can be handled
>logistically, we will need to come out with some solutions for that. But for
>the present lets open up the process more, in terms of the time available to
>respond with full proposals for organizing these workshops. This will both
>improve participation, and the diversity of partnerships of the workshops.
>
>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

____________________________________________________________
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