[governance] IGF workshop approval criteria

William Drake drake at hei.unige.ch
Sun Jun 17 07:17:58 EDT 2007


On 6/17/07 12:23 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I have actually the feeling that positions on
> that questions aren't that fare apart. Do we all agree, that a workshop on a
> controversial issue with only CS colleagues on the panel and probably only CS
> people as in the meeting room would be in contradiction with the IGF
> philosophy of being a multi-stakeholder forum? What we need is
> cross-constituency discussion, not just an "world exhibition of IG positions".

Not to belabor this any longer, but nobody has ever argued that panels
should not have to be MS or for events with one stakeholder group in the
room.  We are debating whether only co-sponsorship makes something MS, and
on this the positions are far apart and asymmetrically represented in the
decision making process.

> So: If we find PS <and> government people willing to sit on a particular
> workshop panel we will also be able to let them sponsor the workshop concept
> by signing the proposal. I don't see any rational for IGF workshops in which
> other constituencies don't have any interest at all.

If it were that easy we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.  But
per previous, getting government, industry and IO people on panels is much
easier than getting their bosses/institutions to agree to co-sponsor.  If
you'd like to offer Germany as a co-sponsor of last resort, we can put the
issue to rest right now;-)

BD


____________________________________________________________
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



More information about the Governance mailing list