[governance] preparing for IGF 2008

[Ian Peter]

Hi Adam, a few thoughts

I think each theme chosen could have a continual running thread throughout
the conference up until closing sessions - indeed for a lot of people
specializing in say security or access this would allow more in depth
analysis in their chosen areas. If this was done with plenary updates on
specific subjects staggered, people could chose to stay with themes or go
back to overview sessions - or of course chop and change (may not have
explained that well but I could draw it out if necessary)

I also recommend a common break time at lunch for essential networking (in
Rio it was hard to find time for lunch or between sessions).

I don't think there were too many sessions - rather too many clashes between
sessions with similar themes because of the way all sessions on a theme were
to be completed in a time frame before a plenary on the same subject

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
Sent: 27 November 2007 21:00
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] preparing for IGF 2008

Hi,

A stocktaking session will be held in Geneva, hopefully on 25 
February for open consultations and an expected meeting of the 
advisory group (AG) on February 26-27.  A second open consultation in 
planned for May 13, again likely followed by a meeting of the 
advisory group. These dates aren't yet firm enough for the 
secretariat to announce publicly, however I think they are 99% 
certain...

Some tasks:

When secretary general renewed the AG on August 20 he asked the group 
to suggest means for rotating its membership ("based on 
recommendations from the various interested groups"). Thoughts? 
Current list of members here 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/ADG_members.htm>.  I hope the "pain" will 
be shared equally among stakeholders.  This would also be an 
opportunity to suggest better balance among stakeholders.

We should also be considering means to enhance transparency and flow 
of information.  AG's immediate reaction to the secretary general's 
request was to publish notes of its closed meeting.  Was this 
adequate?  Given the pretty rough and ready reaction at the time, if 
these notes were improved --for example the ICANN board's doing a 
good job of reporting 
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-20nov07.htm>-- would such 
information be adequate?

Observers are another possibility, but there are costs/problems.  My 
main concern with observers is the AG already works too slowly, I 
think it would do less in a larger setting. And it makes Chatham 
house rule essentially meaningless (like it or not, Chatham house 
rule is important for governments in particular.)

What worked well in Rio, what worked less well, what went badly?

Badly: funding for participation.

People mentioned the schedule was too crammed with activities, no 
time to stop and talk.  How can we take open call for workshops etc, 
and filter the number down (rejecting proposals is a very hard 
process.)

Were the best practise sessions useful?  Were the open sessions useful?

Are the themes right? Should any be dropped, should any be added? 
Radical reform of the whole agenda will not happen, so incremental 
changes may work. The caucus workshop on the mandate seems to have 
been well received. We need to be realistic about what can be changed 
(in my opinion.)

I think there's a feeling the main sessions were generally flat 
compared to Athens -- very few requests to make comments/ask 
question, very little remote participation, the main session room 
half empty while the workshops quite well attended (perhaps if there 
had been 2000 people things might have been different, the problem 
might not have been content but about announcing the content early 
enough so people could plan to attend.)  Might be possible to keep 
main sessions to the first and last days, with workshops in the 
middle and have workshops report back and discuss substantively on 
the final day?

If we can agree on themes early next year (February?) a call for 
workshops could go out early (March), we could start thinking about 
speakers early (and finding funds for those that need), publish a 
meaningful programme early (June?) so people decide if they want to 
attend.  etc.

Funding - can we help?

I'm sure there's more.

If we want the 2008 process to go better than 2007 we should begin 
discussing now.

Thanks,

Adam
____________________________________________________________
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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: 26/11/2007
10:50
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1152 - Release Date: 26/11/2007
10:50
 

____________________________________________________________
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