[governance] IGF workshops

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 29 avr. 08 à 18:02, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>> If so, then it seems that IGC is the main organizer of 3 out
>> of the 4
>> workshops (transboundary, rights agenda, IGF role and mandate) and
>> would submit them subject to consensus reaching, while IGP is the
>> main organizer of the "internationalization" workshop, will submit
>> it, mentioning IGC co-sponsorship.
>> This would mean that actually IGC is making 3 workshop proposals as
>> main organizers, not 4, and is co-sponsoring 1 as for now.
>>
>> Do we all share this understanding?
>
> This is fine with me, but I don't think the difference in status  
> you are
> trying to establish is valid.

I'm not trying to do so (neither a difference, nor a hierarchy, BTW).  
I'm just observing that the other 3 workshops have been discussed  
inside the caucus, including with regards to co-sponsorship and  
especially potential speakers. This is not the case for this one (and  
I've already said that it's partly because IGC hasn't been able to  
provide inputs in time).

> I suspect that APC is in the same position
> with respect to the rights workshop that IGP is in with respect to the
> JPA WS.

This is not what is written in the "rights workshop" proposal. This  
has been made explicit: co-sponsors are " Civil Society Internet  
Governance Caucus, supported by ITForChange, Telecommunities Canada,  
Bill of Rights Coalition; Association For Progressive Communications"

> And it may be that others are in the same position on the other
> proposals.

I don't think so.

> Unless Parminder or the other co-coordinator of IGC has
> actually established a login account for all the other workshops,  
> there
> is no real difference.

The difference it makes is in the workshop orientation, choice of  
panelists, choice of co-sponsors, etc. As well as how a proposal is  
perceived by IGF Secretariat/MAG, in case they are going to use some  
"quotas" in the selection process. It's also important in terms of  
activity/reports of constituencies organizing workshops, reports to  
the plenary sessions, written reports to the IGF, etc. Finally, it  
will make a difference in case a proposal is NOT selected: e.g. let's  
say no workshop submitted by IGC is accepted, we would certainly draw  
some conclusions. So, there are many reasons why it's good to now who  
is the main convenor.

This is also why I'm of the opinion that Parminder, in his capacity  
of IGC coordinator, should submit himself IGC workshops and be the  
main contact for these proposals.

But yes, in the end and apart from these considerations, a workshop  
is a workshop: some people discussing some topic.

____________________________________________________________
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