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

Thu May 12 10:41:10 EDT 2011

Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should make sure to defend, please let me know. 

All the best, Katitza.  
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
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> wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > > Jeremy Malcolm <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
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/5d28f0d2/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