[governance] Main session proposals on DA and WSIS Principles

[William Drake]

On 2/21/08 5:17 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
>> I think we should recommend including discussion
>> of the mandate within the "Taking stock and the
>> way forward" session and some associated
>> workshops.  Important we start looking at what's
>> been achieved and to prepare for discussion about
>> the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond
>> 2010.  There could be a call for workshops on
>> topics from the mandate not yet addressed (or not
>> the subject of other sessions) and the second in
>> the "branded" series.
> 
> Yes, like other main session it should also be intensely prepared for by a
> WG, and have associated set of workshops, with role and mandate of IGF
> workshop as one of them. Parminder

Precisely what I had in mind in saying we shouldn't propose a new thematic
main session on this.  Try to turn the "Taking stock and the way forward"
session into something meaningful, do a branded IGC ws on the mandate, and
have the results from the ws feed directly into the former.  This didn't
really happen last time, it was decided (but not notified) at the 13th hour
that ws speakers could not be on the rather stock stock session.  The two
should be linked.

BTW, speaking of the IGC's "role and mandate of the IGF" WS in Rio, its'
worth recalling that the experience with this really demonstrated the
problem with the MS sponsorship requirement.  If Lee hadn't managed to get
Jamaica as a silent partner it'd have been CS only.  Despite many many time
consuming outreach efforts by Parminder, Adam, myself, others---nobody would
touch it, some opposed it.  In the end, it was a very productive and well
attended session that didn't make the sky fall, but the irrational paranoia
it elicited before the fact was striking.  As discussed last year, it's
highly problematic to demand that WS organizers get diverse MS sponsorship
when most governments, intergovernmental organizations, and companies are
very reluctant to sign on and be officially linked to anything that's not
completely anodyne.  That includes players that are represented on the mAG,
(interestingly enough).  I think it'd be good if the paragraph on this point
not only said that diversity of views and panelists is more important than
sponsors, but that the mAG should state clear guidelines rather than make up
the rules' interpretation on the fly, it's very unfair to organizers.

Bill

PS: I was asked offline by a lurking reader why our statement refers to the
MAG.  The official name is the AG, no? 


____________________________________________________________
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