[governance] preparing for IGF 2008

[Adam Peake]

At 2:07 PM +0100 11/28/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>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 :)


Yes.


>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?


My guess is the former.  But I don't think anyone knows for sure.  I 
believe the secretariat may ask UN New York for clarification on the 
mandate of the AG renewed on August 20.

The usual IGF way to do it would be first to take comments from 
stakeholders, discuss, and make a recommendation to the secretary 
general.  And this would be make sense in light of the instruction in 
the press release of August 20 "It [AG] has also been requested to 
make proposals on a suitable rotation among its members, based on 
recommendations from the various interested groups."  I imagine there 
will be a request for comments issued soon, discussion held during 
the February consultation, AG then draft some recommendation during 
its meeting and then I hope this draft recommendation will be put for 
further public comment before a final recommendation goes to the 
secretary general.  Nothing's been discussed to date, been busy since 
August with Rio arrangements.

But. A representative of the Russian Federation made a comment during 
one of the closing sessions in Rio that the mandate of the AG ended 
with the Rio meeting.  So seems there's no agreement on all this.

I think it would be a shame if the February consultation only 
discussed rotation and the AG. Need to get moving on themes, 
structure etc.  The improvements you and others are suggesting won't 
happen if left until midsummer.

Adam



>>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