[governance] IGF workshop approval criteria

[Adam Peake]

Bill, best I can remember all descriptions of workshop proposals 
included the multi-stakeholder principle.  The document prepared 
before the May open consultations said in the section about workshops:

"Each session will conform to the IGF principles of multi-stakeholder 
participation in both the project proposal and in its implementation."


I have said *I* expect this will be an important criteria should 
demand for workshops be greater than the number of available slots. 
It is not an official position of the advisory group or secretariat 
for selecting between workshop proposals should that be required. So 
I have suggested that it would be a good idea to look for 
multistakeholder representation in the organizing group behind the 
workshop proposal.  Geographic diversity also will (in my opinion) be 
important.  This may make it easier for CS advisory group members to 
argue for workshops.

At no time has anyone said the principles of multistakeholder 
organization and participation have not been applied, sorry if you 
reached a different conclusion.  Perhaps also try to remember that 
last year was the first time anyone tried this.  I'll copy what I 
said a few days ago below.

How does the caucus suggest workshop proposals should be selected if 
demand exceeds the number of slots?  Does the caucus want a beauty 
contest when CS is so under represented in the Advisory Group?  There 
will be no time for complicated schemes involving more outreach and 
consultation, the schedule as we have noted is already too tight. 
More practical suggestions helpful.

Thanks,

Adam


At 5:38 PM +0900 6/15/07, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>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 7:04 PM +0200 6/16/07, William Drake wrote:
>Hi Jeanette,
>
>On 6/16/07 5:43 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Bill, I agree with Adam here. We both advocated multi-stakeholderism
>>  as a selection criteria already last year. The fact that we did not get
>
>I of course am not aware of what has been advocated by whom in mAG or why,
>but that's not an argument.
>
>>  more applications as available slots for Athens doesn't mean that the
>>  selection criteria as such doesn't count.
>
>The fact remains that it wasn't applied last year and there's been no public
>notification until Adam's message yesterday that things will be different
>this year.
>
>>  The Internet Governance Project co-organized a workshop with UNESCO last
>>  year. It is possible to cooperate with IOs even if its not always easy.
>
>UNESCO's remit is precisely on freedom of expression so Milton was able to
>get them on board, but one happy alignment of interests hardly illustrates a
>generalizable principle.  Does it logically follow that Parminder could get
>ICANN to support a ws on core resources as global public goods, that I could
>get the ITU to co-sponsor a ws on NGN's potential impact on net neutrality,
>and so on?  I already went through this last year when I was talked out of
>submitting a proposal on implementation of the WSIS principles on the
>grounds that no governments, industry or IOs on or off the mAG would want
>such a ws to happen (you'd think I was proposing a ws on implementation of
>Comintern principles, rather than something repeatedly endorsed by 174
>governments et al).
>
>>  I very much believe in this model of multi-stakeholder cooperation also
>>  or even especially on the level of _organizing_ discourse. I would
>
>Meaning that the only acceptable discourse in the IGF is that on which
>everyone agrees?  To me, that's a repressive perversion of
>multistakeholderism, precisely the opposite of the opening up I thought we
>were working for.  Maybe the IGF should use a smiley face as its logo.
>
>>  therefore also first drop workshop proposals that are not
>>  multi-stakeholder in case there are more than slots available.
>
>Good to know, thanks.
>
>If the principle is to be elevated to an absolute requirement this year, I
>do hope it will be applied equally to all proposals from all stakeholders.
>
>On 6/16/07 5:41 PM, "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org> wrote:
>
>>  and one thing that still isn't clear to me - are we talking about a criteria
>>  that there must be *multiple stakeholders* (ie, more than one) or *all
>>  stakeholders* which would include specifically, CSOs, government, 
>>business and
>>  international organsiations?
>
>We're following the underspecified rules that were largely ignored both by
>proposers and the mAG last year.  Simple inferential process, Karen.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bill
>
>
>>
>>  William Drake wrote:
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>>  Since Adam sent the below to the list after a series of private exchanges
>>>  between us on the same, I'd like to give my view, with which he disagrees.
>>>
>>>  Snipping..
>>>
>>>  On 6/15/07 10:38 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  My guess is demand for workshops will be higher
>  >>> this year -- IGF's better known and more will
>>>
>>>>  Last year all workshop proposals were 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 believe it would a bit unfair and potentially problematic for many
>>>  CS-initiated proposals if the mAG opts this year to strictly require that
>>>  workshops truly have multistakeholder sponsorship in order to get approved,
>>>  on the following grounds:
>>>
>>>  1.  Precedent.  Irrespective of what it said on the website, many workshops
>>>  approved for Athens were not remotely multistakeholder in organization, in
>>>  that they were sponsored by intra-species collaborations, single
>>>  organizations (IOs, business, CS) or individuals.  Aside from 
>>>Adam's message
>>>  to this list yesterday, two weeks before the submission deadline, there has
>>>  been no public indication from the secretariat or mAG that the nominal rule
>>>  so clearly ignored last time will be enforced this time.  To me, that's in
>>>  effect changing the game mid-stream with little notification, and people
>>>  might understandably have been proceeding on the assumption they 
>>>didn't have
>>>  to worry too much about this.   Adam disagrees.
>>>
>>>  2.  Political Reality.  It would be nice to believe that all stakeholders
>>>  support the IGF serving as an open forum in which, per WGIG, any 
>>>stakeholder
>>>  can raise any issue, and hence are prepared to support any workshop
>>>  initiative that is on an important topic.  But as we have seen in 
>>>many ways,
>>>  most recently with the funding withdrawal threat, the actual support for
>>>  free and open dialogue on any and all topics is rather variable.  Some
>>>  stakeholders may view proposed topics through the lens of their strategic
>>>  postures, even though it's only dialogue and not a negotiation.  One can
>>>  readily imagine topics that CS groups might like to have discussed that
>>>  would have a difficult time winning co-sponsorship from industry,
>>>  technical/administrative groupings, or certain governments.  I for example
>>>  might have problems getting support from such quarters for a session on a
>>>  development agenda because it's misconstrued as necessarily implying the
>>>  same sort of 'controversial and divisive' negotiations that happened with
>>>  the WIPO DA (it doesn't).   The same might apply to resources as global
>>>  commons, don't know.  Conversely, many CS groups might be reluctant to sign
>>>  onto an industry workshop on the glories of telecom liberalization and
>>>  privatization, the COE convention as a boon to civil liberties, 
>>>or whatever.
>>>  Moreover, international organizations and governments might have additional
>>>  constraints in considering co-sponsorship requests, e.g. turf
>>>  considerations, the need to stay within agreed mandates, fear of being
>>>  associated with a 'controversial' topic even if they like it, reticence
>>>  about signing onto something initiated by CS, and so on.  In sum, if now
>>>  strictly applied, the rule would seem to favor anodyne topics and framings
>>>  that all can support like capacity building or, for that matter,
>>>  openness/diversity/security/access, over some tougher issues that really
>  >> need to be worked through and that the IGF alone can provide space for.
>>>
>>>  3.  Sponsorship vs Dialogue.  To me, what really matters is the flavor of
>>>  the dialogue, whether the speakers are MS and multi-perspective, 
>>>not whether
>>>  the formal sponsorship is.  I cannot see why the names at the top of a
>>>  proposal are more important than the names of the panelists and the actual
>  >> discussion that ensues.  And it it will be much easier to get government,
>>>  IO, or industry people lined up as speakers than it is to get the same
>>>  people to convince their minister, SG, or CEO to organizationally endorse a
>>>  WS.
>>>
>>>  Parminder would like CS mAG members to communicate his request 
>>>for more time
>>>  to the mAG and the secretariat (I'm agnostic on that---the deadline was
>  >> announced some time ago).  I would request in parallel that they 
>communicate
>>>  this request that the MS requirement be construed more with regard to the
>>>  speakers and actual dialogue rather than the sponsorship.
>>>
>>>  Thanks,
>>>
>>>  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
>
>***********************************************************
>William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
>Director, Project on the Information
>   Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
>   Graduate Institute for International Studies
>   Geneva, Switzerland
>http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
>***********************************************************
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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