[governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants

[Ken Lohento]

I also think we should not have too many people on the panels, if we 
want to learn from Athens and since we have less time for main sessions. 
It's a good option to have "discussants", they will have less time than 
main speakers but this will give them the opportunity to provide inputs 
to the debate. As someone said they are "people like the public, but in 
a privileged situation for asking questions or making some comments". We 
should ensure that CS stakeholders are also main speakers in all 
sessions. Discussants and speakers should sit at the same table. 5 
speakers+3 discussants are a good number for me...but not sure we will 
avoid 10 people...

Maybe an option for the future is that half of the speakers/discussants 
are not only nominated but also submit publicly a synthesis of their 
contribution ( short bio + 1 pager), which will serve as basis for their 
selection by the MAG; and half of them will be directly selected by the 
MAG (key experts, people from "disadvantaged" groups, etc.).

By the way, providing attendance financial support (travel, 
accommodation…) for some speakers also remain an issue. The fact that 
only the people that have the means/the opportunity to attend the summit 
can be selected is not fair. IGF funding remains a problem.

Ken L


Adam Peake a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Not good news about the selection of speakers for the IGF.
>
> The sessions are now 2 not 3 hours, but at the moment we have not 
> found a way to reduce the number of participants, like Athens still 
> around 12-16 per session. Still draft, which I why I am writing for 
> advice. There's time to cut the numbers, if only we knew how...
>
> The process so far. My understanding is the secretariat took all names 
> received from different stakeholders (including self-nominations). 
> Collated the names by session they had been recommended for, tried to 
> find out if people were actually attending, and sent a list of all 
> these names to the advisory group for comments. Advisory group members 
> then sent their recommendations from that list back to the 
> secretariat, there was some discussion, but not much. Recommendations 
> were sent blind to the secretariat, in most cases members didn't know 
> who others were recommending. Recommendations included moving people 
> from sessions they had originally been suggested for.
>
> Last Thursday the secretariat sent list which they had divided up as 
> people who had support from among the advisory group being named as 
> panelists and discussants, and people lacking support being dropped. 
> Those with most support from among the advisory group were listed as 
> panelists, suggested they will be able to make an initial comment of 
> about 5 minutes (no powerpoint.) Next level of support have been 
> suggested as discussants.
>
> There's not been much discussion about the distinction between 
> panelists and discussants. I think discussants will be brought in 
> after a round of questions and comments from the floor. They'll be a 
> kind of second wave, with shorter statements, perhaps give specific 
> examples to highlight some topic, or ask questions for the panel, or 
> try to move the discussion along if it becomes bogged down on one 
> issue or looses track, etc. (only my guess as to what they might do.) 
> I am not sure where the idea for "discussants" came from originally.
>
> The numbers from last Thursday's list are:
>
> Critical Internet Resources: 14 participants (8 speakers, 6 discussants)
> Access: 15 participants (6 speakers, 9 discussants)
> Diversity: 12 participants (8 speakers, 4 discussants)
> Openness: 15 participants (9 speakers, 6 discussants)
> Security: 16 participants (7 speakers, 9 discussants)
> Emerging issues: 9 participants (4 speakers, 5 discussants)
>
> It's not clear if all of these are actually attending, but seems most 
> will be (probably all.)
>
> The list of panelists and discussants doesn't look too bad from a 
> civil society perspective (some holes, but not too bad.)
>
> Some AG members are still suggesting moving people from the discard 
> list (of course there are good people in that group) back as panelists 
> or discussants. So we are tending to see names being added rather than 
> cut.
>
> What do we do?
>
> I think there should be no more than 9 on any session, perhaps 5 
> panelists and 4 discussants (5 & 3 better of course.) But that would 
> mean dropping a lot of good people. There is no agreement among any 
> stakeholder group on who to select.
>
> Very clear message from Athens that large panels are not acceptable, 
> they don't work.
>
> Going for the smaller number means less CS on the sessions. Some of us 
> won't be happy.
>
> So what do we do and how do we do it. (Note the lack of time, less 
> than four weeks to the start of the meeting.)
>
> We should not make the list of names public. We've no right to do that.
>
> 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
>


-- 
Ken Lohento
Programme "Usages et politiques du numérique" (TIC)/
Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT)
Institut Panos Afrique de l'Ouest/Panos Institute West Africa
6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal
+221 849 16 66
www.panos-ao.org
www.cipaco.org
www.euroafrica-ict.org
http://mediatic.panos-ao.org


____________________________________________________________
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