[Fwd: [Fwd: RE: [governance] About the IGF call for workshop

[Milton L Mueller]

Just now I see Parminder's response, which is even more reassuring, as Parminder is on the MAG. Let me express agreement strongly with these objectives:

(1) workshops more relevant and focussed on key issues, rather than less

(2) get different viewpoints and positions together at the same place rather than different rooms, which again I know you do, in general, support.

Not much to add to these comments, except to allow them to be repeated so that people will read it again:

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.

These are indeed my main concerns. Good that you understand them so well (but then you have been on the receiving end...)

(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.

Yes!

(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.

Yes! This is a very important distinction and you have articulated it even better than I did. Note that one need not attribute nefarious motives to anyone for this problem to arise. But it will arise if we group people solely on the basis of "workshop titles."

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.

 OK!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090324/909c674c/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