[governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants

[Adam Peake]

For info, sent the following to the advisory group last night.

Couple of things deleted and a comment.  Quoted text is what's on the 
AG list.  I recognize some flaws. But best I can think of. Might get 
numbers below 10.  I doubt it will be adopted ...

Adam



>
>
>Dear Markus,
>



>
>But I agree with

(names - snip)

>there are too many people
>on the list.
>
>If there was one unanimous negative message from Athens it was there
>were too many speakers. In my opinion it is not acceptable for us to
>publish a programme with so many participants.
>


(snip)

>  But
>I think we can fix both these problems, and also ensure good quality
>speakers by allowing stakeholder groups to make further selections
>(i.e. further reductions) from the list you sent today.
>
>We have recognized four main stakeholder groups: government, civil
>society, private sector and the Internet technical bodies. That's how
>membership of the advisory group seems to have been developed.  I can
>hardly see a member of the advisory group that does not fit those
>four groups.


(thank you Meryem :-)


>We are discussing six sessions.  I suggest each stakeholder group
>selects two people for each session.  Each stakeholder group may
>select a maximum of eight panelist and four discussants.  We only use
>the list sent earlier today, "Panellists.18.10.2007.doc".  No more
>additions, no pulling names back of people who have dropped off along
>the way.  There isn't time for even more argument.  If that doesn't
>automatically give balance then we can tweak.
>
>However, in making selections stakeholder groups can move people from
>one session to another.  The list is flexible.  We should know
>people's strengths well enough to suggest if they can be moved in
>this way.
>
>Some observers may feel they will not be represented.  And perhaps
>observers could be offered one panelist or discussant for each
>session: a total of three panelists and three discussants. That would
>make a maximum of 9 on each session.  I am aware that the formulation
>I'm suggesting won't automatically balance the number of
>panelist/discussants on all sessions. But I hope it gets close.
>
>Stakeholders are not required to make 2 selections!
>
>I think we all know what the criteria should be: first we are looking
>for people who are expert on the subject matter and we must pay close
>attention to regional diversity and gender.  If there are obvious
>gaps after this exercise is done then we can look again.
>
>If we follow this plan we might get the number at or below 10 for all
>sessions, and all stakeholders should be equally satisfied or
>dissatisfied.
>
>Perhaps stakeholders will select the same person, in which case
>numbers will drop.  Let's keep selection blind (and honest!), names
>to the secretariat and no sharing before hand.  This would allow for
>the opportunity of chance selection of the same person, so reducing
>the numbers.
>
>People who are unfortunate and not selected can perhaps have their
>names passed to the moderators as first choice
>questioners/contributors from the audience.
>
>We must reduce the number of participants.
>
>Best,
>
>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