[governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process

[Parminder]

> Thanks Parminder.  Hopefully this will be seen as constructive rather
> than critical, but I found this submission a little weak.  

Well, I must almost thank you for describing it weak, it may enhance its
acceptability among some :). 

On a more serious note, as you recommend, I would have liked to make a
bolder opening and right away mention the points we are really making. But
it is a diplomatic practice to start with nice words and come to your main
points in a round about manner. And we as a group, at least many among us, I
think are quite circumspect to mention things which may even remotely sound
like frontal criticism of how IGF/ MAG conducts its business.

In fact, governments are perhaps bolder in this respect. Even the Northern
govs who generally are more conservative about IGF agenda and possibilities.
The swiss doc (my current favorite) starts  with " Still, we believe that
the IGF has not yet fully exploited its potential." 

But yes, I do think the doc may be too long for the 3-4 specific points it
is making, and we may need to edit it down. I will try and re-organise it. 

but the main concrete suggestion to
> address it is to take the same approach as in Rio of distinguishing
> between thematic and general workshops (only to do it better this
> time).

In Rio, the distinction was almost not there, other than perhaps in the
workshop selection process, and a bit about which session one could report
back in - which process was rather disorganized and I think finally anyone
could report back in any session. And, yes, all workshops of one theme were
slotted in manner that there was no overlap. I am speaking here of WGs
preparing for the plenary and the thematic workshops together, establishing
clear connections between them, including feeding in the outcomes of
workshops into the plenaries.  WGs will also synthesize an outcome document
for each plenary subject. 

> Another recommendation I would like to see in that space be allowed
> either in or around plenary sessions for intensive deliberation on the
> policy issues discussed in the plenary in a moderated roundtable
> setting (rather than a seminar setting).  At present, only the views
> of a minority - the panelists, discussants and those who choose to ask
> questions - are ever aired.

Most round tables have limited number of participants. What kind of round
table do you suggest here. Can you pl clarify.

> There must also be a formal mechanism by which for the output of
> dynamic coalitions to be injected into the plenary sessions.  The
> "Reporting Back" sessions do not suffice for this.  Instead, the
> dynamic coalition should be involved in the preparation of the plenary
> session to which their work relates, and thus be given an opportunity
> to shape its format and to suggest topics around which for the
> moderator to guide discussion.

Yes, we can put this into the dynamic coalitions part which will be added to
the draft as circulated now. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - process
> 
> On 15/02/2008, at 11:08 PM, Parminder wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Thanks Parminder.  Hopefully this will be seen as constructive rather
> than critical, but I found this submission a little weak.  It
> accurately diagnoses the problem, but the main concrete suggestion to
> address it is to take the same approach as in Rio of distinguishing
> between thematic and general workshops (only to do it better this
> time).  Since the only other suggestion, to discuss more focussed
> topics in the plenaries, is to be dealt with in a separate submission,
> this leaves the present submission a little lacking.
> 
> Perhaps it could be made stronger, without adopting more contentious
> recommendations, by a bit of reorganisation so that the most
> significant reforms you suggest are put first.  As I see it, the most
> significant reform of all that you recommend is that workshops be
> organised by working groups drawn from stakeholders and MAG members,
> to ensure their relevance and focus.
> 
> Another recommendation I would like to see in that space be allowed
> either in or around plenary sessions for intensive deliberation on the
> policy issues discussed in the plenary in a moderated roundtable
> setting (rather than a seminar setting).  At present, only the views
> of a minority - the panelists, discussants and those who choose to ask
> questions - are ever aired.
> 
> There must also be a formal mechanism by which for the output of
> dynamic coalitions to be injected into the plenary sessions.  The
> "Reporting Back" sessions do not suffice for this.  Instead, the
> dynamic coalition should be involved in the preparation of the plenary
> session to which their work relates, and thus be given an opportunity
> to shape its format and to suggest topics around which for the
> moderator to guide discussion.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 



____________________________________________________________
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