[governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process

Sat Feb 16 00:45:56 EST 2008

Yes, Linda, we will add appropriate text on improving online participation.
Parminder 

  _____  

From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On
Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:36 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process

Dear Parminder, and greetings All:

Your post is so very comprehensive...  thanking you much for the information
and insights.

An aspect I would like to participate in is "remote" access and related
topics so we really expand the "attendee" list via e-attendance.  On review
of the many materials I gathered while attending online throughout Rio
IGF-II, I hope these experiences may help for New Delhi.

The facilities were really quite productive even in the face of need/desire
to expand (Thx Jeremy) and the people, on the human side of "man"/machine
interfaces, were really super too .. and in real time (Avri, Adam, others
made themselves e-available) among others including those here.

With best wishes and appreciation of the reports and great progress, 

LDMF.

Linda D. Misek-Falkoff

*Respectful Interfaces* Program of the Communications Coordination Committee
For the U.N; online ARPAnet forward; original programmer, GML starter set,
forerunner of HTML; colleague and friend to those here; other affiliations
on request.

On 2/15/08, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: 

Hi All

Sorry for making this email high priority. It contains some text for a
possible caucus statement on improving the IGF format for Delhi, which needs
some urgent attention from the members, and I wanted it to separate it from
the other interesting discussions taking place on the list.

At this time we propose to make three statement - one on MAG renewal, some
text of which is already being discussed, another on our suggestions for
improvements in format for Delhi, some text for which is given below, and a
third one with a few possible themes for the main sessions.

For offering suggestion on format for Delhi, I have tried to stick to fewer
things rather than give a long list.  The main thing is to make the
plenaries more purposive and attractive, and have a clear workshops
structure around it. And that its preparation should be more through and
facilitated by dedicated working groups.

I will add other things, like a real lunch break to the text in the next
stage.

(starts)

(Opening pleasantries are yet to be drafted.)

In providing suggestions for how New Delhi IGF should be organized, Civil
Society Internet Governance Caucus understands that the IGF's mandate and
functions can be divided into two broad categories. One is of providing an
open space for discussing any and all public policy issues  regarding the
Internet for all stakeholders, therefore, inter alia, encouraging a  closer
interactions between stakeholder and groups who 'do not often 'talk' to each
other'. The second set of mandates and functions can be clubbed in the
category of providing some relatively clear directions and possibilities in
the area of global public policy, and for this purpose plug the gaps in
terms of ideas, possibilities, interactions etc in the global institutional
framework in this area.

The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to meet both these
purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being achieved, and IGF
is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall meeting where anyone
can come and voice one's opinion and concerns.  However, the requirements
for the purpose two listed above - that of some clear contribution to the
global policy arena - may need us to explore some structural improvements
for the next IGF meeting, without taking away its open town hall meeting
character.

Many participants at Athens and Rio felt that there were too many workshops
going on at the same time, even overlapping with the plenaries, and the
attendance at and the interest in plenaries was quite low. It was even more
so in Rio than in Athens. This severely compromises the 'convergent
identity' of the IGF, as one global forum with some discernable internal
cohesion, apart from just being an open space encouraging diverse
deliberation.

One reason for this low interest in the plenaries was that there were too
many workshops being held at the same time as the plenaries. But equally, or
perhaps more, important reason was that the themes of the plenaries were
just too broad and participants really did not take much away from any of
these sessions. Apart from being too general, and allowing each speaker to
make her own interpretation of the issue, the non-specificity of the issue
under discussion allowed people to often/ mostly speak on areas which were
remote from any implication on global Internet related public policy, which
is the chief purpose of the IGF to discuss. Such diversion or dilution is to
some degree acceptable in case of workshops, in interest of diversity and
openness, but not for the plenaries which represent very precious prime time
for the IGF, and there is only that much of it in a whole year.

We should therefore seriously explore new possibilities that could put life
back into the plenaries and allow the IGF to meet its outcome-oriented part
of the mandate as well.

First is the issue of the large number of workshops. We do understand that
limiting the number of workshops too drastically will affect the diversity
of the kinds of discussions that are held, and of the groups that are able
to use the IGF space. Therefore we think that we should continue to allow as
many workshops as the limits of available logistics allow, to encourage
diversity and broader ownership and participation in the IGF.

In order to address what, in this context of allowing the maximum number of
workshops, appears to be a conflicting imperative of strengthening the
plenaries, for the sake of an 'convergent identity' of the IGF (as opposed
to the divergent identity built by multiple workshops) and improving its
outcome-orientation, we may need to bring a two-pronged approach to
organizing the IG.

One approach is of allowing multiple diverse workshops, as is done at
present, while keeping some general themes in mind, so as to not allow
things to go too much out of IGF's domain and priority areas. These
workshops can be called type A workshops, and the current main themes of
access, openness, diversity and security can serve as over-arching themes
for organizing these workshops in clusters, so that each stream can stay
separate, enabling people interested in any one theme to attend all or most
of the workshops in that theme.

For making the plenaries more productive, they should be organized around
some specific global public policy issues, which are found to be of utmost
importance, and not around hold-all themes like openness and access,
discussions around which do not produce any fruitful outcomes. We suggest
some such topics in a separate statement. A lot of preparatory work should
go into preparing for these discussions, which should be done through
working groups set up for these purpose. These working groups could consist
of members of the MAG plus some other experts and stakeholders. These
working groups must also synthesize the outcomes of these deliberations and
present them as a document.

Some workshops - called type B - should be arranged around the selected
topics for the plenaries. There should be a limited number of them, with a
vigorous effort to merge proposals for such workshops in a manner that
preserves diversities of geo-politics, special interests and different
viewpoint, but retains the clear purpose to increase the effectiveness of
the plenary sessions.  Selection of and preparation for these workshops
should be done by the concerned working group along with the sponsors of the
workshops. Type B workshops should not be held in parallel with the
plenaries.

This dual architecture of an open space for diverse workshops and a
relatively tightly organized structure of plenaries on specific global
public policy, well-organized through a working group, and also resulting in
an outcome document (even if stating a variety of positions, and not a
consensual or negotiated one position) will enable the IGF to fulfill its
mandate in a much better way than it is able to do at present.

We understand that such dual tiered workshop structure - one kind of
workshops tied with plenary topics, and others independent - was proposed
and tried in preparation for Rio, but apparently it did not quite work out
in any purposeful manner.  We can get it right this time around with better
selection of specific topics for the plenaries, and more through
preparations through dedicated working groups.

(I wan to put some text of dynamic coalitions here.. Will prepare some and
add. Inputs are welcome.)

(ends)

Parminder

____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080216/964d8858/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