[governance] IGF Workshop reports

[Eric Dierker]

Adam,
 
This seems like a very minimal requirement. Your link was quite concise and a nice snapshot of what was done.  Why a delay or perhaps recalcitrance to file a full report?
 
I want to know what great progress was made in this essential area.
 
What I most like about the concept of the merger and "attitude" of the "outline" and the participant list was that I got a sense that models and monitoring and therefor a system for accountability seems to be in the works. This is a good backbone for Internet Governance.
 
(I note also a good blend of nonconfrontational Technical with Policy, highly desireable)

--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:


From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Workshop reports
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: :@npogroups.org
Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 1:47 PM


> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100101/eb3ff345/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