[governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes

[linda misek-falkoff]

An observation on knitting concepts:

At WSIS (I and II I believe)  (and some of us met there, hello again) "i*
nterconnecitivty*" was the byword.  Confession:  I didn't really understand
a difference from "*connectivit*y" but we do gain the phrase "*inter".* Seems
a useful tie in to network metaphors and edge ones both.

Wouldn't it be nice if CS approached the kudos and regrets (paraphrase) from
such a perspective. There are many rich comments here implying
disconnections but also connections that held. (Parenthetically, I'll try to
glean some real-time (then) screen shorts from the remote shore to show some
gains in connectivity online).

It's really helpful, by the way, to read here creative and incisive ways of
describing *cat-belling* and *emperor clothing*. Very elegant and very
instructive.

Warm regards, Linda.
Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces*.



On 2/17/08, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080217/a29bfe4f/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