[governance] IGC workshops

[William Drake]

Hi Adam,

On 4/19/08 11:53 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> It's there now <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>
> 
> "Stakeholders unable to complete all the information requested in the
> online form by 30 April 2008 are invited to at least provide answers
> to questions # 1,2,4 and 9."
> 
> I asked that the announcement be more prominent on the main page.
> It's still hidden away.

I can never find stuff on the IGF site, and have been unable to get a
functioning login, so I can't read the form that's said to be linked from
this page. I gather that it lists the nine questions Parminder emailed out.
BTW there are seven questions on the template
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops08/WorkshopTemplate.v1.doc.  The latter
doesn't include the "which of the five themes" question.

> Suggest if a proposal fits with the five themes, say which.  If it
> fits with any of the themes from the February MAG meeting say so.  If
> it's general, say so.  But I think question 9 as written is perhaps a
> mistake.

Suggest that you simply delete this question, which could cause confusion
among some people, and refer them to
http://intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm where they can find out that
workshops can be proposed on the main themes, or workshops can be proposed
not on the main themes.  Also suggest that you get someone to have a close
look at the nine questions MAG is asking people to address.  Some of them
are not worded well and could cause confusion among non-IGF insiders, e.g.
newbie event organizers.  A spell check would be a nice touch too.

Also, I would like to offer a mild objection to one of the questions.

3.  Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to
invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have you
approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed workshop.

These sorts of loose questions on IGF forms---like the "Relevant
Organizations and ways of communicating with them" one for the workshop
reports---just beg for people to skip them or provide perfunctory responses,
listings, whatever (unless you really would like people to describe ICANN et
al in a few sentences). But more importantly, is the concept here that in
order to propose a workshop, one is compelled to invite the ³main actors in
the field,² or at least to explain why one has not?  Why is that a useful
standard?  If one wants to organize a session on say domain names, is
approaching ICANN mandatory?  It¹s not legitimate to propose an event with
non-main actors that might have something to say?

I just wonder how people who exist outside the IGF bubble read this stuff
and whether they will feel incentivized or the opposite....

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080419/34e50d1e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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