[Fwd: [Fwd: RE: [governance] About the IGF call for workshop proposals]]
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Mar 24 03:40:39 EDT 2009
Milton,
Your doubts about the new process are all very important and well
articulated in your email below.
My understanding, though MAG did not go into the details of the issue,
is that the MAG is trying to make
(1) workshops more relevant and focussed on key issues, rather than
less, an objective, I know, you share. To some extent, the attempt may
also be to get workshops more focussed towards issues that are
relatively more central of IGF's current agenda - which we all know is
somewhat politically negotiated within and outside the MAG. I know that
you will agree both to a more politically determined and a more focussed
set of activities at and through the IGF than otherwise. However
workshops are also a means of introducing new agenda into the IGF and
this aspect of the 'workshop' space remains important even in the new
scheme.
(2) get different viewpoints and positions together at the same place
rather than different rooms, which again I know you do, in general,
support.
However I suspect that you may see two problems here.
(1) You may challenge the political authority and legitimacy of the MAG
to take this increased role. We will have to have a separate discussion
on this. However I do know that since you were always for an even
smaller MAG with clearer political accountabilities than a larger,
diffused and a rather powerless one, I suspect we may have some common
ground to agree here as well.
(2) You are afraid that the open space of 'workshops' where any agenda
could be articulated may get crowded out, with MAG being able to push
its favored subjects even in the workshop space. In this context, my
feeling is that the MAG may not get too assertive in choosing workshops
and in advising mergers. I would think that all workshops with solid
substantive/ organizational/ participation basis will be accepted. There
may be some 'advice' from the MAG to consider merger, but I would think
that for any 'good organizer' it will relatively safe to turn it down.
On the other hand, the MAG filter can rather be used to discourage and
remove proposals, that have what you recognise as the key problem in the
workshops space - in your words, workshops 'that were thrown together
at the last minute with no coherent theme and/or had unbalanced
viewpoints or stakeholder mixes".
Your fear that the MAG process may be used to make 'Workshops become
bland and meaningless' is very important to keep in mind. You mention
two, related, aspects to this problem. In both cases I support your
position strongly and we should do out best through IGC interventions
and presence in MAG to make sure that MAG's processes in selecting and
advising mergers is informed of these positions.
(1) The problem that many in the IGF arena have a (very) active position
against certain discussions (and not just certain positions) is endemic,
and needs to be constantly engaged with, and its impact minimized.
(2) A related problem, as shown by your IPv6 example, is that, if one is
not able to stop certain important global policy discussion through
obstructing at the agenda
setting level, it is then done by mixing 'capacity building' and
implementation issues when core policy issues may be sought to be
discussed. As you argue, just because the general name/space of an issue
- IPv6, connectivity, CIRs etc - may be same or shared, it doesn't
mean that we can keep bringing very different 'aspects' of the issue
together in the same discussion, which just obstructs meaningful
discussions.
If the IGF can somehow find a way across the above two problems, we
would then have made a huge move forward and be ready to discuss some
real global Internet policy issues which is the IGF's primary mandate to
discuss. At present, I can only say that this is a political struggle
and we keep trying our best.
I have considered these issues you raise about the new format, and as
mentioned in my MAG meeting report in my email of 3rd March I support it
'on the balance'. However we should strongly present our fears and
doubts and need for corresponding care in the MAG processes at the next
open consultations and the MAG meeting. It is only after the May meeting
the process of advising mergers etc will start.
So, I hope you would develop proposals for the workshops IGP wants to
hold in the next IGF and submit them before the 15th of April.
Parminder
(The above is a mix of my impressions of MAG's intention and my personal
views. As I said MAG did not discuss the new format - especially its
pros and cons - in any great detail, and therefore I may be wrong even
while judging MAG's intention.)
Thanks for this very useful clarification, Bertrand.
I want to take issue with some of the analysis behind it, but in general
I agree with the intent of the new approach and appreciate your giving
us clear advance notice of it.
The problem with past workshops was NOT that proposers had the ability
to propose and execute "fully developed" proposals. Many of the best and
most productive workshops followed that partern. The problem was that
the Secretariat did not feel as if it was in a position to discriminate
between fully-developed proposals that were executed well, and those
that were thrown together at the last minute with no coherent theme
and/or had unbalanced viewpoints or stakeholder mixes.
The saving grace of this "anything goes" policy was that it allowed a
few applicants to put together high-quality Workshops that were
unfiltered and had a clear vision of what they were trying to do. It
also meant that for every one of those, there were one or two sloppy and
unbalanced ones. But people could vote with their feet, and they did.
Indeed, all of the IGP Workshops for the last three years have been
packed, because they had sharply defined themes, balanced collections of
panelists and dealt with real, substantive issues not fluff and
self-promotion.
The clear and present danger from what you describe as the new approach
is that all proposals have to be run through the political wringer of
the MAG. This is a good way to make Workshops become bland and
meaningless, or, (worse) ensnare their proposers in months of political
negotiations with clueless or hostile partners. I have first-hand
knowledge of how this happened last time with the IPv6 main session
panel. Making the content of workshops into a collective decision of the
entire IGF is a sure-fire way to ensure that the Workshops become
as boring and useless as most of the main sessions have been. Your new
process seems to put the MAG at the center of grouping proposals and
selecting themes, and the whole point of the Workshops was that it
offered a free space outside of that.
I hope that when you start grouping "theme" proposers together, you do
so with open eyes.
That means: recognize, please, that for every pressing and important
topic in Internet governance, there is someone or some group who would
prefer that we not talk about it at all.
That means: Do not throw together people who want to undermine or
prevent discussion of a topic with the people who really want to discuss
the issue, and expect them to work out a good program.
That means: do not throw together people who want to talk about related,
but quite different things. (e.g., in the IPv6 panel there were people
who wanted simply to promote migration to IPv6, and there were people
who wanted to talk about the transitional problems caused by the
shortage of IPv4 addresses. Those two ideas were fundamentally
incompatible as topics, and we wasted lots of time trying to reconcile
them.)
In other words, up to now the Workshops, because they are relatively
free, have been the saving grace of the IGF. I hope that doesn't get
spoiled with the new approach. It could have disastrous consequences for
attendance at the next meeting.
Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:10 PM
*To:* WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
*Subject:* [governance] About the IGF call for workshop proposals
Dear all,
A word of explanation on the call for workshops proposals issued by
the IGF secretariat, as it is a slightly different procedure that in
the previous years.
During the February consultations and the MAG meeting, it appeared
clearly that the traditional method of asking people to propose
fully developed workshop proposals (complete with co-sponsors and
potential panelists) had two unexpected but damaging consequences :
- several proposals on similar subjects were prepared separately
with great efforts and great commitment from proponents,
- it became therefore particularly difficult to encourage them to
merge afterwards, as they became naturally strongly committed to
their specific approach
The general result was in the first three years the abundance of
workshops that everybody recognizes as difficult to handle for the
participants.
The process proposed this year is therefore a bit different, taking
advantage of the fact that we are starting a little bit earlier. The
objective is to encourage people to first submit themes rather than
full-fledged proposals, with arguments and reasons why the theme
should be addressed. This represents for all IGF participants an
opportunity to have an increased influence on the Agenda of the
meeting itself (as issues can be proposed by people who do not have
the capacity to organize a workshop themselves). It is also a way to
facilitate grouping different proposals together and encourage
proponents to join forces to co-organize one session instead of
several in parallel.
In Hyderabad, the community underscored that different issues have
different levels of "maturity" or "ripeness", and the MAG has
basically identified three categories that could correspond to
different workshop formats (what is below is my own formulation of
the three categories) :
- issues where people do not agree yet on the nature of the problem
and where a more complete picture needs to be drawn before trying to
identify solutions : such issues would benefit from expert panels,
laying out the different dimensions,
- issues where people are clearly aware of the different aspects at
stake but disagree on the appropriate approach or objectives; these
would benefit from very interactive workshops with a lot of
participation from the room
- issues where a basic agreement has emerged on what needs to be
done and where the challenge is to synergize concerted action among
the different concerned stakeholders; this category could benefit
from "roundtable formats" gathering the key actors involved in order
to help them distribute responsibilities and coordinate action.
As the discussion in the IGC progresses, I felt it was important to
describe this new context. Several interesting issues have been
raised on the list so far and the IGC can play a very important role
in discussing a relatively extensive list of themes, and then seeing
how they could be grouped in clusters. This will help the work of
the Secretariat and the MAG immensely. .
I hope these background elements will be useful.
Best
Bertrand
--
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
the Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
--
____________________________________________
Roshni Nuggehalli
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (00-91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net
www.IS-Watch.net
http://India.IS-Watch.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/0f7bada4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/0f7bada4/attachment.txt>
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list