[governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants

[Vittorio Bertola]

Adam Peake ha scritto:
> Hi,
> 
> Not good news about the selection of speakers for the IGF.

Subdivide the AG into four subgroups (governments, I* societies, civil 
society and ICC). Ask each group to propose two names in priority order 
among the ones already nominated. If they are all different, you end up 
with eight panelists, which at this stage looks like a good compromise. 
If some suggestions overlap, that's even better - you get less. If the 
result isn't very diverse, ask some group to reconsider, and if that's 
not possible, live with it (especially, I would avoid civil society to 
be characterized as the stakeholder that always has to provide women and 
people from developing countries so that all the others can continue to 
ignore diversity requirements).

I think there's no other way to do it.

In any case, if we really ended up again with sessions with 14 people, I 
suggest we make a statement about it as a caucus.

P.S. I would be against the suggestion that Ken posted, that people 
should specify in advance what they would say, and would be picked 
according to that. It's a good road for cross-vetoing and advance 
censorship.
-- 
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