[governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme

[Parminder]

> If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will
> loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP
> Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?"
> Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc.  


But the program doc doesn't say so...

To quote "workshops will be overseen by the MAG and supported/facilitated by
the IGF Secretariat. Workshop sponsors whose workshop proposals fit within
the topics recommended by the MAG are invited to contact the IGF
Secretariat, if they wish to have their workshop considered as Main Session
Workshops. However, they should not be prevented from holding their separate
workshop if they prefer, depending on the availability of meeting rooms."

Is it that you think since there are more proposals than slots, the axe will
definitively fall on those workshops which are being included in main
workshop design... How do you think mergers will take place into a main
workshop design... could it not become unmanageable if they put too many
workshop organizers together.... I understand that it is the 'stronger' (in
terms of themes and partnerships) workshops that may be accommodated in the
main session framework, but the same strong contenders may be more wary of
their workshops 'disappearing' under some new very broad agendas. This may
make these stronger workshops to not seek to come into main sessions
partnerships... was just wondering. 

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:37 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme
> 
> At 10:22 AM -0400 6/11/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >I share some concerns with Vittorio here about the absence of the words
> >"freedom" or "rights" from the agenda, although I am less concerned
> >about the abandonment of the "U"-word.
> >
> >What I would like to know is whether there is a chance to change
> >anything in this agenda or are we just letting off steam?
> 
> 
> is a good question.  The paper is described as a rolling document
> "and will be updated as appropriate."  I do not know if we can modify
> it now, the themes in generally similar form have been available for
> comment since the February meeting (which also made the call for
> workshops) but as people feel strongly I would encourage sending
> comments as soon as possible.  Send direct to the secretariat, they
> are pretty good at making sure all comments appear in synthesis
> papers, etc.
> 
> I understand the agenda has already been sent to the secretary
> general so he can prepare an invitation to all stakeholders (as seems
> to be the process, he still needs to convene the IGF) so I think too
> late for that.  But changes will be made in September. The programme
> has to be fleshed out, pages 10-15 of the paper describe the
> programme to date, these of course have the be explained, they aren't
> any use as a programme at the moment.
> 
> As Avri wrote yesterday, workshops that are related to the main
> session themes can volunteer to join with the MAG and other similar
> workshop organizers to help arrange the main sessions. These will
> have a great impact on the programme.
> 
> For example, IGP proposed a workshop "Regional IP Address Registries:
> The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?"  There will be a
> session "Arrangement for Internet Governance".  IGP could volunteer
> to merge its session with those of others who have proposed workshops
> that are an equally good fit with the session theme to create a new
> "main session workshop".  The volunteer workshop organizers and the
> MAG will arrange this session, and I expect (though mechanics have
> not been worked out) they will also be involved in the main session
> debate (debate: really is hoped that it can be a debate and not a
> stage full of panelists.)
> 
> There's also a session on IPv4/v6 which IGP might find more
> attractive, but that's IGP's choice.
> 
> If IGP chooses to help arrange the main session workshop, it will
> loose the ability to hold an independent session on the "Regional IP
> Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance?"
> Can't do both, there isn't time, space etc.  Unfortunately, for some
> sessions, there aren't many workshop proposals that are as good a fit
> as the IGP example. But as proposals can be modified up to June 30,
> there is time to do some tailoring.
> 
> BTW  -- I subscribe to the list so don't need to be cc'd!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> >--MM
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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