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

[William Drake]

Hi Adam,

On 6/12/08 7:07 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
 
> We've been saying we support the idea of thematic
> workshops feeding into or linked to the main
> sessions, but we haven't thought how to propose
> workshops that do that.

If there's a lack of thought, it needs contextualizing.  Correct me if I'm
wrong, I'm not a close to the process and may be misremembering while
traveling, but I believe that workshop proposals were due April 30, and that
the MAG settled on the current formulation of linked main session workshops
and debates on the designated themes in mid-May.  In which case it's not
surprising if many proposals are not substantively focused and operationally
formulated in a manner that links easily to the main sessions.   If the MAG
could have settled on and announced a program model in February rather than
focusing largely on its own constitution and operation, maybe people would
have worked through these issues already...

One approach, suggested in Rio, might have been to proceed bottom up and let
the workshops people submitted drive the formulation of the main sessions.
Identify thematic clusters in the submissions, select those on the themes
that seemed most promising and directly related to IG per se, and then do
mains on those themes that involved a representative from each of the
selected workshops.  I suppose this might have been viewed as risky and as
leaving MAG with less to do.  A reverse and presumably more palatable
alternative suggested subsequently would have been for the MAG to early on
designate themes top down (taking into account external suggestions) and
invite workshop proposals relevant to them, again selecting the most
promising and directly related to IG workshops and pulling in
representatives from each.  Where we are now is more akin to the latter
except there wasn't early notification to incent people to formulate
proposals accordingly, so now you're post hoc trying to fit things together
and discovering mismatches.  For example, there's to be ms ws and then a ms
debate on IPV6 but there are only 3 ws proposals on that, so you'd have to
fill out a ms debate with more than a person from each, if a feeding in
approach were to be followed. In contrast, there's a ton of proposals that
could be characterized as arrangements for Internet governance so there
you'll have to find some basis for justifying treating just a few of these
as thematic. And as you've noted, not a lot that are good fits between CS
proposals and some of the themes, like security/privacy/openness.  And then
of course many others of us (including the caucus) submitted proposals that
are not on the designated themes, not knowing that if we'd done something
different it could have become a ms ws...

Anyway, we are where we are, so what kind of thinking are you looking for
that we've not done, exactly?  How to manage the asymmetries in number,
quality, and stakeholder origin of ws proposals across the themes, due in
part to the non-notification of the model?  Criteria for selecting when
there are too many proposals?   Ways to encourage mergers when people want
to do their own branded things?  If you could be specific about what's
needed it'd be easier for people to address it.

Thanks,

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