[governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes

[Parminder]

> 2.  Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal
> line
> of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been
> discussed here, much less within the wider IGF.  Everyone reasons
> differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions
> or
> put things the same way etc.  The longer you go on, the higher the
> possibility someone has an issue with something.  You can lay out
> elaborate
> cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be
> said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them.

I am going to prepare a more concise statement, but often the discussion and
arguments are more important for this group than for the IGF consultations,
and therefore I let the arguments stay in along with substantive points. 

But I think the reasoning was not so much personal. The statement takes its
point of departure as the agreed text on the theme proposal on 'Role and
mandate of IGF' for Rio. Especially the sentence - that some of the mandates
cannot be fulfilled merely by holding an annual conference (drafted by you).

So, as per this, I divided the kinds of functions IGF is supposed to do into
2 types. (I thought it make sense to suggest structural changes in IGF in
context of functions it is supposed to perform, and not just throw some
points at them without this connection). Rather than a somewhat dismissive
'annual cof' tag I used the one Nitin is currently most fond of 'open town
hall meeting'.

I think we have all been in favor of a better organized IGF with plenaries
and workshops linked to each other (our 07 statements). But it is our
experience that all workshops cannot be forced into such structuring - which
limits the diversity etc. Swiss gov doc asks for limiting the number of
workshops for better structuring, but we are on record to say (in 07
statements) that there should be no restriction on number of workshops.

Given above imperatives I suggested two concurrent architectures for the
Delhi IGF -one which is open and un-restrictive, and the other more tightly
organized using WGs. It more or less flows from our existing thinking on
this matter. It is also something which was already tried - though
half-heartedly - for Rio, in classifying two types of workshops. 

One thing I added was a specific critique of the plenaries. Everyone I know
thought there is a problem with plenaries, but we can discuss this here.  
 
> 4.  I would also go for a bit more positive tone.  Even if some of us may
> share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the
> caucus to use language suggesting, ....

OK, we can tone it down. Pl suggest language. But we shd also be careful
about what happens when we write in the manner of 

we tried xyz in
> Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some
> new
> things that would be even more value-adding, etc.

They will say, thanks for the compliment, we know you have even greater
ambition and that is natural esp for CS. But lets consolidate our gains
first. You described as jaw dropping the manner in which Kummer build a
-everything-is-going-great-at-IGF picture in the IGF workshop at ICANN
Delhi. Who do you think is going to bell this cat, or point to the emperor's
non-clothes if CS doesn’t. I think we need not be too cautious here. We are
even more 'cautious' than gov. and business sector in IGF deliberations, and
that’s not quite right. 

On the other hand, we are going to say positive things - like about new
openness - where it is due. 

My IGF format statement has only a few key points

1. We need to structure it to enable to get the parts of the mandate which
are not being performed or well performed at present. 

2. Plenaries should discuss specific public policy issues, and not just some
general stuff.

3. A set of workshops should be aligned to each plenaries.

4. other set of workshops can be open, and cover more varied topics.

5. separate working groups consisting of MAG members and some outsiders
should prepare for each plenary and its associated workshops.

6. These WGs should also synthesize the outcomes of each plenary - even if
as a set of views presented. 

That’s all nothing more. I think it is better to make a proposal for a clear
structural change, and only focus on that. Other points about conf
facilities and such can be made in May. This may be the time when some
points about structural changes can get in, later it will be too late. 

So please let me know what members think about these points. 

And lets work on our agreements on these points. Issues of language, taking
slants that more positive or less, cutting out descriptions like 'divergent
and convergent identity' can be commented on separately, and worked on.
That’s less of a problem. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:42 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to
> get
> > through the whole process.
> 
> Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and
> inconclusive
> debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly
> compiling
> the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for
> labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc.  Whatever.
> 
> At this point I suggest we recalibrate:
> 
> 1.  Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus on.  I
> would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining format
> and substantive suggestions.  Make them concise and easy to digest and
> react
> to (here and in the consultation).  Paragraphs of three lines, if not
> bullet
> points.
> 
> 2.  Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal
> line
> of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been
> discussed here, much less within the wider IGF.  Everyone reasons
> differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions
> or
> put things the same way etc.  The longer you go on, the higher the
> possibility someone has an issue with something.  You can lay out
> elaborate
> cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be
> said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them.
> 
> 3.  Moreover, the texts are just too long as floor interventions.  For
> example, your Friday text on the IGF format is already 3 pages and > 1,000
> words and you indicate there are more sections you want to add.  And
> that's
> just one of your proposed three.
> 
> 4.  I would also go for a bit more positive tone.  Even if some of us may
> share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the
> caucus to use language suggesting, inter alia, that the number of
> workshops
> "severely compromises the Œconvergent identity¹ of the IGF;" that
> "participants really did not take much away from any of" the main
> sessions,
> which featured discussions "which do not produce any fruitful outcomes;"
> that the main session speakers "just made their own interpretation of the
> issue" and "mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication
> on
> global Internet related public policy" resulting in "diversion or
> dilution;"
> and so on.  I think a better tone would be to say, right, we tried xyz in
> Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some
> new
> things that would be even more value-adding, etc.
> 
> Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus
> charter,
> many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've
> been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this
> discussion.   I think your best chance of generating more responses and
> buy
> in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points in
> a
> manner people can process readily.  I don't think you can operate on the
> silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people
> say
> yes we don't have caucus statements.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



____________________________________________________________
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