[governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants

[Adam Peake]

>Hi Adam,
>
>It's sort of ironic that the AG, which is appointed to provide high-level
>expert advice on an optimal and balanced program, would as its main piece of
>business ignore the one point on which seemingly everyone, including AG
>members, agreed about Athens---too many panelists.  9 to 16 participants in
>a two hour session is just nuts.


I agree.


>Either the moderators run excessively
>tight ships sharply limiting and frustrating the panelists, or there will be
>inadequate time for Q&A with the floor.  It seems unlikely that a majority
>of attendees will come away satisfied, and in the case of CIR, on which lots
>of people will have things they want to say, there will be frustration (at
>least among those who wanted this on the agenda) if the conversation
>doesn't focus and cumulate in any manner, which it won't with 14 speakers.
>I'm hard pressed to see how this could be good for the IGF's public
>perception, political support, and future development.


I agree.


>I also think the idea of discussants is unhelpful.  These folks will feel
>like second class citizens, particularly if being in the category is
>publicly understood to mean that they had "less support from the AG;"


No, they should recognize there was all kinds of decisions being made 
about trying to balance knowledge/country/region/stakeholder/gender.



>it
>will be difficult to keep them satisfied with their constraints (if
>"panelists" get five minutes, what do discussants get, one or two minutes to
>say their piece?); and it'll waste time cycling between the two groups.


Yes.


>This is yet another reminder that poorly organized processes produce poor
>results:


Yes.  Names only requested after the last consultation (but we knew 
they were going to be needed, if you look at the transcripts of all 
open consultations this year at each I asked that we begin selecting 
speakers early.)

Lesson: can't arrange large international conferences in 10 weeks.


>AG members tossing names into a hat without knowing what other
>names have already been suggested by colleagues; and a necessarily additive
>representational/interest group selection process, rather than just focusing
>on who would be likely to have something interesting to say irrespective of
>which group they're identified with.


AG list, including the intergovernmental organizations who sit on as 
observers (and are not silent), must be about 80 people.

There were about 120 names recommended (some for more than one panel, 
which I find a bit ambitious.) Some people recommended names without 
checking if the person would be in Rio.  So some of us also tried to 
check who would be there and who not. We are not sure about all on 
the list even now.

Even with 5-7 for each session (5-7 is the number of panelists 
suggested in the programme) it's a lot of names to focus on.  With 
more time we might have managed to go through session by session, but 
there was no way a single mailing list could discuss the merits of 
120 people.  Sending in recommendations blind meant probably more 
people commented, and they probably gave more honest opinions than 
would have if their comments had  been open (may people will not 
discuss relative merits of others even on the most private of private 
lists. Sensibly...)  And I suspect as soon as someone said "her not 
him" someone else would have responded with the opposite. And we'd 
have even less progress.

I am not trying to make excuses, I am saying we're stuck.  Advice 
good.  This is going to happen again next year.


>Personally, I'd have taken the Noah's
>ark approach, get two value-adding speakers from each of four stakeholder
>species (excluding international orgs that will get to show their wares in
>Open Forum sessions)


Not a bad approach.  Please go through the advisory group list and 
define membership of the 4 groups.  And what do you do with those who 
don't fit, they should have a say.

And suggest it will not be practical to tell observers like UNESCO, 
ITU, CoE, OECD, etc they can't suggest speakers for a main session.

Thanks,

Adam



>, and stop there.  If anyone's disappointed not to get
>on because of this constraint, well, sorry, but it's taking one for the
>team.
>
>I suppose the one good piece of news is for the workshops.  If the main
>sessions are as you describe, maybe more people will opt to skip them and go
>attend parallel sessions that are actually well planned and focused, with
>manageable line-ups of speakers.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bill
>
>On 10/16/07 5:47 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

____________________________________________________________
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