[governance] IGF workshop approval criteria

William Drake drake at hei.unige.ch
Sun Jun 17 03:16:59 EDT 2007

Hi Jeanette,

On 6/16/07 11:34 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> I feel tempted to point out basic truths: the simple reason why we
> advocate the multi-stakeholder approach is that many issues cannot be
> solved without boundary crossing cooperation involving multiple actors.
> The IGF is a space to facilitate this kind of exercise. There are plenty
>   of venues for discussions we want to have among ourselves...

Nobody would argue with these points, but the co-sponsorship principle does
not necessarily follow from them.  They are arguments for multistakeholder
panels and dialogues.  This was achieved last year by many workshops that
had single species or entity sponsorship, and there's no reason to believe
the same wouldn't be true this year if organizers were simply told that they
need multistakeholder, multi-perspective panels.

Parminder and I raised several concerns and I don't feel that anyone has
really tried to respond to them seriously.  Instead we've gotten religious
statements that it must be this way because it must be this way, or
assurances that it's really not hard (I'm guessing, from people who are not
presently engaged in trying to line up MS for "controversial" topics), or
offers that one could meet the requirement by simply listing someone's
private consultancy as representing industry  (would the mAG really accept,
say, Lee McKnight Ltd. as a substitute for the ICC or Cisco?  If so great,
any of us who consult can just list ourselves as representing both CS and
private sector).  Sorry if I don't find such statements responsive and

Anyway, please do get an extension then.



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:

More information about the Governance mailing list