[governance] IGF Workshop reports

[Adam Peake]

>In message <4B3C8AC9.8000401 at wzb.eu>, at 11:28:09 on Thu, 31 Dec 
>2009, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes
>>such things are always subject to negotiation. If you ask me, Alice 
>>should be able to convince the secretariat that she wasn't in a 
>>position to write a report. So should be your guy who dropped out. 
>>Co-organizers, on the other hand, should be grown up enough to 
>>share the responsibility to deliver a report. But there are just my 
>>personal thoughts.
>
>I'm primarily concerned about the multitude of people mentioned as 
>co-organisers, who may not realise that their future prospects could 
>depend upon a report being filed.


There's a section in each workshop proposal "The Workshop is proposed 
on behalf of"  and it's the organizations listed there that are 
responsible for the report.  They should know who they are as the 
organized and held a workshop in Sharm.

The requirement to file was part of the call for workshops, this 
isn't a surprise request (was also a condition last year.)

I submitted a workshop proposal, had supporters from various 
stakeholders, but I led the organizing.  We eventually merged with a 
workshop proposed by Bill Woodcock (he also had support from various 
stakeholders). 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2009View&wspid=113> 
Bill and I, for GLOCOM and PCH, are responsible for the report.  Not 
the other stakeholders who supported the workshop.  If we don't 
submit a report (haven't yet...) we'll not be eligible to organize a 
workshop next year.

Adam



>Maybe one way out is to differentiate between Joint Proposers, and 
>"Co-organisers to be approached" (to use the language of the 
>website).
>
>Roland.
>
>>Roland Perry wrote:
>>>In message <4B3B872A.4010908 at wzb.eu>, at 17:00:26 on Wed, 30 Dec 
>>>2009,  Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> quotes Marcus Kummer:
>>>
>>>>We all agreed to make submission of a workshop report a 
>>>>prerequisite for accepting a workshop proposal for the Vilnius 
>>>>meeting. The new deadline will give us a clearer picture of how 
>>>>many potential organizers we may have next year by the time we 
>>>>meet in February.
>>>  There's an aspect of this which puzzles me slightly: Several 
>>>workshops  were merged, which has left the definition of 
>>>"organizer" unclear.
>>>  Let's say that Tom, Dick and Harry all proposed workshops on 
>>>similar topics, and merged. From then on, Tom did all the 
>>>administrative work, Dick helped him, but Harry dropped out after 
>>>he'd passed the contact details for his proposed speakers to Tom.
>>>  Harry had also originally said in his proposal that he was 
>>>co-organising  his workshop with Alice, but in fact had never 
>>>contacted Alice to  confirm this, and she knows nothing about it.
>>>  Tom failed to file a workshop report on time, does that also 
>>>disqualify  Dick or Harry (and Alice?) from proposing a workshop 
>>>in their original  individual capacities for Vilnius?
>>______________________________________________________
>
>--
>Roland Perry
>____________________________________________________________
>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