[governance] General Workshop Proposal procedure (response to

[Marilia Maciel]

Dear Milton and all,

I understand your concern and I have to confess that it also makes me feel
unsecure to leave such a wide margin of decision on the hands of the MAG.



On the other hand, there was a negative aspect on the model that was in
place until last year, regarding the organization of the workshops, in my
opinion. If the free arrangements between workshop proposers allowed people
with the same frame of mind to get together, it also lacked transparency and
openness.

It allowed pals to define a workshop proposal and make it public when
everything was agreed, no other organizer could be included (with real
space) and no important adjustment to the main theme could be made.



I believe it´s good to start this debate early and carry it publicly. But I
also agree that we should follow this process closely, and don´t leave it
all to MAG. This should be seriously debated and I am glad that you
mentioned it.

Best regards,

Marília

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi Milton and all,
>
>
>
> Definitely an important point here, Milton. However, as I understand it, at
> this point we are not putting any real “work” or commitment into the
> workshop proposal, but brainstorming basic ideas. Interested groups would
> continue/commit with the process after the next step by the Secretariat. For
> the moment, it is quite an informal proposition, as I see it, to measure the
> amount of interest and to facilitate groupings before much energy is
> invested in the workshop design and planning. I think this is better than
> developing a full workshop proposal only to be told that workshops will be
> combined/not approved. *It also allows for suggestions/support for
> workshops by people who are not interested in organizing them, but in
> attending them*.  Personally, I see this as an opportunity to ask for
> someone else to organize a workshop that I see as necessary to help me and
> the IG situation.
>
>
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. We should be clear on this. I see the IGC role
> at this point as requesting/supporting certain workshops, not committing to
> developing them. Any other ideas on this? gp
>
>
>
>
>
>  The template on the IGF page is:
>
>
>
>    1. Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words)
>    2. Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200
>    words)
>    3. Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes
>    (Critical Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or
>    under the cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)?  If so
>    which one? (Please select the most appropriate one.)
>    4. Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the
>    link to the report.
>    5. Would you like to organize the workshop yourself?
>       1. If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ?
>       2. If not, who do you think should organize it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>  ------------------------------
>
> *De:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> *Enviado el:* Lunes, 23 de Marzo de 2009 09:56 a.m.
> *Para:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> *Asunto:* RE: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
>
>
>
>
>
> Ginger, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the workshop
> discussions and of compiling the responses. Thanks for that.
>
>
>
> My problem at this stage is that I (and, I suspect, many others) are
> basically frozen in place by Bertrand's suggestion (statement?) that the
> method of workshop planning and development will be completely different
> this year. I am surprised that there has been no response to my expressed
> concerns about this, and until there is some clarification or discussion of
> those basic parameters, I think it is unwise to invest time in developing
> workshops. Indeed, I am not even sure I would plan to attend the IGF if
> certain worst-case scenarios play out.
>
>
>
> We have been told, in effect, "don't develop a detailed, coherent program
> for a workshop and don't line up any people, because whatever idea you have
> is going to be treated as a general "theme" and then thrown into a huge pot
> and re-sorted into MAG-defined groups." And those groups may be a bunch of
> people who hardly know each other with different, sometimes conflicting
> agendas. If I am not correctly apprehending the meaning of those changes
> please correct me. In the meantime, I await an appropriate response.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation
>
> Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on this
> thread.
>
>
>
> Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application
> (practical) perspectives (Ginger)
>
>
>
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
>
>
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090323/c4d47a6f/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