[governance] Workshop judgments

[Marilia Maciel]

I completely agree with Milton. Slots in the IGF are a public resource of
the community and should be managed accordingly, with the aim of fostering
productive discussions. No obviously bad or inconsistent proposal should be
given a slot just because the proponent took the time to submit some
paragraphs. Unfortunately, it happened in past years that one or two
proposals got rejected, but the group that evaluated them was asked to
reconsider its decision. If it becomes recurrent, the exercise of selecting
the workshops would be somewhat unproductive.

Marília

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Thanks for these helpful notes, Izumi!
> I see that the number and quality of workshops was discussed quite a bit.
> How many can be eliminated and which should be merged?
> This has been a longstanding issue with the IGF.
>
> Because it is so easy to submit a workshop - but not easy at all to
> organize and run a good one - I believe that the MAG and the Secretariat
> have an important obligation to eliminate obviously bad proposals. They
> should reject those that are not relevant to global internet governance but
> are about ICT generally, or don't have an actual governance angle. They
> should also insist that organizations or individuals who submitted more
> than three workshop proposals withdraw all but the two or three best ones.
>
> They should also be very careful with mergers. A merger can literally ruin
> multiple workshops by diluting their focus, involving too many panelists or
> organizers, or throwing together incompatible approaches.
>
> As an example, IGP proposed one workshop, which has a lot of support among
> people interested in addressing. The proposal is actually for a workshop -
> it is not a series of "speakers" but brings together people to actually
> work on something according to a defined framework. It would not be
> possible to "merge" this workshop with another one that is based on the
> idea of a series of speakers. Those two approaches are simply not
> compatible.
>
> Let me add that I was happy to see these comments from MAG members:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Paul Wilson
> > level of commitment of many workshops wasn't good enough, to give
> > confidence - not serious approach taken,
> > relevance is important - some content is not relevant to IGF
> >   not about Internet Governance, but ICT only - not accept those
> > we should trim down, to make sure we have high quality
> > appeared to be repeated, not convincing
> >
> > Bill Drake
> > Support what Paul said
> > One individual submitted 8 proposals
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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/20120516/1643e635/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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