[governance] On the process of proposing workshop themes
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
isolatedn at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 16:35:36 EDT 2009
Hello Betrand de La Chapelle,
Part of the concerns expressed by way of resistence to the new method of
defining workshop themes stem from the fact that the second part of the
workshop process is undefineed and ambiguous.
1. Themes are to be proposed first, to come up with a long list of themes.
This is good. Very good, infact.
2. After themes are proposed, what is the process by which the MAG would
decide on a slot for a Workshop on Security at the cost of a Workshop of
Privacy, for instance?
3. After it is decided to go ahead with one of the two, how would the MAG
decide on the "ownership" of the theme ? Individual A and Oranization B
both happen to have proposed a workshop on the same theme. Now who owns it?
'Ownership' is a term used to convey the idea that the Workshop 'owner' gets
to have considerable influence in steering the panel speeches and
discussions to proceed in a certain way, and also, to some extent, to reach
a desirable and some cases pre-determined conclusion.
Apparently difficult questions, but if Step 1 can be handled, Steps 2 and 3
can also be handled, but the process for these steps need to be
unambiguously defined. And these steps also need to be openly debated and
transparently decided. Could possibly work if the process for this December
started last June.
After all this one concern would still remain. Though this new process is
more bottom-up in step 1, ironically there is more room for top-down
coordination, (if not for top-down decisions) in steps 2 and 3.
Coordination in essence is desirable and can create better results, but what
are the safeguards that there would be a balance ? I feel that this is the
implied concern.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with Parminder and Bertrand's views on the new approach to select
> themes and agendas for workshops. It is an attempt to reduce the number of
> workshops in general and those with overlapping topics in particular. I
> don't think that this approach will increase the power or influence of the
> MAG, not least because the MAG lacks the capacity to micro-manage all
> workshops.
> I see Milton's point that the need to compromise could lead to a watering
> down of topics. However, if we manage to significantly decrease the number
> of workshops, we should gain some space for those (hopefully few) cases
> where workshop organizers are unable to agree on a common agenda. Two
> workshops about related topics would be to the detriment of both workshops
> as they would probably have to put up with a smaller audience.
>
> As Bertrand said, the main point is that this new approach doesn't affect
> the main asset of the IGF, the bottom up method of choosing topcis and
> panelists. Only the "change control" might be shared by more people. The
> overall result could be quite good.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
>> Dear Milton,
>>
>> I did not have time to respond immediately to the concerns you expressed
>> in response to my earlier posting. And certainly did not want it to "freeze
>> people in place" as a result :-)
>>
>> I may have mis-expressed myself or led you to read too much in what I
>> tried to explain. Parminder I think gave some of the elements of answer.
>> This is not a radically new process, just an attempt at improving things
>> progressively.
>>
>> Ginger is doing it exactly the way it is intended and the IGC is likely to
>> provide a very useful contribution by discussing threads.
>>
>> I'll try to clarify a bit here. Because I can assure you that the implicit
>> message is not the one you summarize in your mail below. And this is not an
>> attempt at power grab by the MAG members (should go without saying but
>> always better to say it :-).
>>
>> The fundamental starting points were :
>>
>> * we are starting this process earlier this year than before : this
>> is good and gives some time to work more progressively
>> * preserving the capacity of participants to propose and organize
>> workshops on their topics of interest in a relatively
>> unconstrained manner is a critical element of the IGF : this
>> bottom-up Agenda-setting is probably one of the most precious
>> features of this innovative experiment (it is in my view anyway)
>> * at the same time, there is broad consensus on the desire to have
>> fewer events running in parallel, because people are torn and
>> forced to make difficult choices among things that interest them
>> given the short duration of the meeting
>> * finally, some issues have probably reached a point of "ripeness"
>> where it is useful to avoid having several workshops on the same
>> theme, organized by different actors pushing only their own
>> agenda, and to try and encourage more direct interaction to move
>> the issue forward; isn't it Hamadoun Touré who likes to say :
>> "from friction comes light" and I think I remember you are often
>> the one advocating "real debate" to sort out positions :-)
>>
>>
>> That is the starting point. Hence the proposal to call for expressions of
>> interest on themes rather than full-fledged workshop proposals at that stage
>> (they will naturally come later). It has the benefit of sensing the level of
>> interest on various themes but also allows people who do not intend to
>> organize a workshop themselves to indicate that they think a specific topic
>> should be addressed. This is what I did last year by putting an early
>> placeholder in favor of a workshop on "dimensions of cybersecurity" while
>> indicating that I did not intend to organize it myself.
>>
>> Furthermore, it allows a preliminary debate on the formulation of workshop
>> titles. The discussion on this list on the theme "role of governments in IG"
>> is a perfect example. Instead of having two workshops in parallel, one
>> organized by governments to explain whay they should have more say and the
>> other one by the IGC to explain why CS should have more say, wouldn't it be
>> better to have a single one on the "role of the different stakeholders" ?
>>
>> The IGF is a unique space for dialogue (and/or debate) among people with
>> different viewpoints. It should not result in small groups of like-minded
>> people agreeing among themselves in parallel rooms. The "silo" effect is as
>> bad in IGF as it is in ICANN. Rather than forcing people into "MAG-defined
>> groups", it is just an attempt at facilitating early interaction among
>> people with common issues of interest or concern. And yes, they may have
>> "conflicting views or interests"; but isn't this what the IGF should be
>> about too ?
>>
>> However, this should obviously not limit the possibility for a group of
>> like-minded people who believe a certain angle on a given issue should be
>> given more visibility to gather at the IGF and present their viewpoint to
>> the community. Flexibility and diversity is key here and the guiding
>> principle in chosing formats and composition of workshops should be what
>> kind of outcomes can be expected.
>>
>> All this is about balance and quality of outcomes. The IGF is
>> progressively structuring and this is only a small step to help it produce
>> better results.
>>
>> In a nutshell, the role of the MAG will not be - and should not be - the
>> one you fear. The MAG is and should remain a facilitator. Ideally, the
>> result of this first call will provide a list of themes and interested
>> actors, allowing proponents to see who else is interested in a given issue,
>> and facilitating them getting together. It is also expected to provide a
>> diversity of formulations for the various issues and choosing the proper
>> formulation is often a first step towards better mutual understanding.
>>
>> I hope this alleviates somewhat your concerns. But I thank you nonetheless
>> for expressing them : it is a good reminder that the best intentions can :
>> 1) be mis-interpreted if they are not correctly explained and 2) present
>> dangers not anticipated if a new procedure is mis-used. A useful cautionary
>> call.
>>
>> Sincere thanks to Ginger for her efforts to create thematic threads that
>> help structure discussion.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bertrand
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:
>> mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM
>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto: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 <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
>>
>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu <mailto:VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ____________________
>> 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")
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090325/cc7b4615/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list