[governance] preparing for IGF 2008

[Vittorio Bertola]

Adam Peake ha scritto:
> 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 need a caucus statement :)

To understand better - the February session will be run by the 2007 AG 
and focused on how to select the 2008 AG, or the AG will be rotated and 
reconstituted before February?

> 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?

In general, the AG needs a bit of institutionalizing (hope that the idea 
doesn't scare the I* folks) - ie clearer procedures and mandate.

> 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?

I must say I did not have time to watch much, but my feeling is that:

- orientation and primers don't really fit in such a conference - people 
should do their homeworks and come prepared. However, since I know that 
reality is different, learning sessions should at least be confined to 
an initial preparatory day, so that people who don't need the 
orientation can arrive one day later or use it for other preparatory work.

- best practices could be useful if they were really innovative, not if 
they're just aimed at showing how great country X is at using and 
managing the Internet. Personally I'd scrap them.

> 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.)

Let's separate the two things - themes for the main sessions, and themes 
in general.

The main sessions on the five main themes may become a bit pointless, 
IMHO - as long as the themes stay the same they are bound to be a 
repetition of known positions, without any real contribution to 
advancing anything. Either you change the themes every year, or you turn 
them back into a TV show designed for broadcast/webcast to a wider 
audience, which might not be a bad idea - but then, you have to move 
them out of the focus of the conference, and make them a collateral.

About themes in general, I've really seen a lot of support for the theme 
of "Internet rights" in various declinations (not just the Bill of 
Rights, even if that particular flavour got plenty of attention in Rio).

> 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?

I think that time is ripe to have a "general assembly" type of plenary 
discussion, as long as it's clear that it's not negotiating anything. 
But it needs more than two hours per theme, and it needs to be clearly 
focused and finalized in some way. Not easy to put in practice.

About rejecting workshops, I personally think that the AG should embrace 
a mix of top-down and bottom-up approach. I would be against the AG 
turning into a real program committee and rejecting workshop proposals 
at pleasure, but I would be for the AG being proactive in encouraging 
workshop proposals on certain "hot issues", for example, and in 
prompting people to "think again" if their proposals do not fit well, or 
are just self-promotional, or are not complete enough in terms of 
diversity. I support a set of hard requirements to workshops, including 
not just a clear connection to Internet governance, but also an 
explanation about why the organizers think that people would be willing 
to spend 90 minutes in a crowded conference to watch that particular 
dicussion - organizers should have to "sell" their workshop to the AG. 
And please, let's put a clear upper limit to how much time can be spent 
in presentations, and let's ensure that at least 30 minutes go for floor 
discussion.

I'm also wondering whether certain workshops should be given more time. 
I don't know how to do it in practice, but our experience with the Bill 
of Rights workshop was frustrating. Ok, we started 20 minutes late 
(because you have a hosting Minister in the panel and you can't really 
start without - it's a sui generis conference, but still some protocol 
applies), but even if we managed to keep speeches in 50-55 minutes, 
after 100 minutes there were still plenty of people willing to speak 
from the floor. We really had to close, we had consumed the 30 minutes 
break and would otherwise have eaten into the following session, but it 
was an interesting discussion, with many different viewpoints, and it 
was a real pity not to let people continue.
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
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