[governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0"

[Lee W McKnight]

My suggestion:

1) We are happy to cooperate (really ; ) in merger discussions, assuming a willingness of all parties to propose making this discussion a 2 part extended workshop session/key feature of upcoming IGF meeting

2) Merged title 'Reflection on the Indian Proposal towards an Improved IGF 2.0'

3) Part I: General recriminations/improving IGF discussion, ICC and ISOC can lead, IGC participates 
     Part II: The Indian Proposal Towards an IGF 2.0, IGC leads, ICC and ISOC participate

4) If ok by ICC and ISOC, great, if not well we tried and demonstrated our - flexibility.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:59 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our proposal.

Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex: CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector and the technical community, in my view.

A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas, reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.

The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by political considerations.

In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF improvement?

Best,
Marília

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
>
> >> that the three be merged.
> > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> >
> > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > desires of Marilia and yourself?
>
> A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> difficult to speculate.

Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
debate for those who wish to participate in that.)

Greetings,
Norbert
____________________________________________________________
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, 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




--
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
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