AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations

[parminder]

I agree that plenaries should be held in a manner that all can attend 
them. However, about making workshops and their outcomes effective and 
impactful, I think it works backwards. Make sure you take up specific 
and clear IG issues at each plenary with some possibility and structure 
to take what comes out forward into smaller committees or whatever to 
make some specific recommendations from the IGF on that particular 
issue, with mechanisms both to communicate these recs effectively to 
relevant policy bodies, and later reviewing what happened about them 
(see earlier email exchanges on this subject).

If this happens the workshops will automatically, or with some prodding, 
split into two kinds. One kind would be that would try to contribute as 
much possible to what would happen in the plenary and subsequently. 
These workshops would by themselves become very effective and would get 
out relatively clearer outcomes. (The main thing to ensure than would 
be, as alluded to by Katitza, to ensure that these workshops are not 
captured and have enough diversity of views, and there is enough 
diversity among workshops themselves).

The other kind of workshops will be those which are kind of warming up 
issues for later IGFs, or in general considering a larger ambit of IG 
issues.

So either all workshops can be help before plenaries start, or at least 
all type 1 workshops above can be finished before the plenaries and type 
2 allowed to overlap with plenaries. This is not an ideal solution since 
there are very interested type 2 workshops which many those also wanted 
to focus on plenaries will like to attend. Parminder

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 10:18 -0200, Graciela Selaimen wrote:
>   
>> Hi, Wolfganfg and all,
>>
>>     
>>> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions.
>>>       
>> This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the 
>> two first days of the meeting.
>>     
>
> I agree and have said the same.  Something like this is common in other
> Internet governance institutions.  For example, in my region, the annual
> APRICOT conference (see apricot.net) always commences with workshops.
> Plenary sessions are only held afterwards, so as not to overlap and
> compete with the workshops.  The IGF will never make any progress while
> the majority of participants don't even attend its plenary sessions.
>
>   

-- 
PK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110127/b8d52c2f/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t