[governance] IGF Workshops

[Adam Peake]

Good to hear that many of the workshops were of a high quality.

I think clearly 11 tracks was too many, but there was a record number
of proposals received this year (and no doubt more next.)  Do we want
the MAG to cut 50% or so?  Or just keep the high number?  Something to
think about in time for taking stock consultation next February.

Adam


On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Luca Belli <lucabelli at hotmail.it> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> My impression is that the workshop quality has increased, compared to IGF 6.
>
> I think some efforts may be done in order to merge overlapping workshops but
> it is important to stress the distinction between “duplicate workshops” and
> workshops that analyse similar issues from a different angle. Indeed, many
> of
> the workshops have similar titles but completely different contents, format,
> etc.
>
> For the sake of competition, I would say that it is better to have a wider
> choice
> of similar workshops and let the IGF participants “vote with their feet” by
> participating to the most valuable ones, rather than oblige workshop
> organisers
> to merge.
>
> Furthermore, I would like to join Stuart’s nice comment on Workshop 146
> (Intellectual
> Property Rights and the freedom to share: are the two compatible?). Although
> my
> opinion is not really impartial, because I was directly involved in the
> organization of
> the workshop, I have to say that I received a lot of positive feedbacks and
> the
> participants where extremely pleased by three main features of the session:
>  1) the workshop was an interactive roundtable: panellists engaged in a
> question-and-answer debate since the very beginning and they were not
> allowed
> to deliver lectures (they had a maximum of 3-4 minutes to reply my
> questions);
>  2) a large portion of the workshop was dedicated to interventions from the
> audience.
> Indeed, we all know that some of the most interesting inputs to the
> workshops discussions
> frequently come from the audience;
>  3) we have decided to promote an intergenerational dialogue: the panel
> make-up
> included 11 panellists that were born between the 1950s and 1990s, and that
> was
> a real surplus value.
>
> I know that is not realistic to involve youngsters in every workshop, but I
> believe
> that the promotion of an intergenerational dialogue is the best way to seize
> the dynamics
> of an intergenerational Internet. Moreover, having some new faces around can
> just help
> strengthen the “legitimacy” of the IGF discussions.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Luca
>
> PS: the workshop report will be available by the end of the week
>
> Luca Belli
> Doctorant en Droit Public
> CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas
> Sorbonne University
>
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:46:29 +0100
>> From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Workshops
>
>>
>> Hi Adam
>>
>> From the perspective of the library groups at the IGF we also felt that
>> the quality of the workshops was good. We tried to put reports about the
>> ones we were involved in as up as we went along, so please feel free to
>> take a look here:
>>
>> http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-130-outcomes-digital-inclusio
>> n-and-public-access-to-the-internet
>> http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-168-outcomes-capacity-buildin
>> g-initiatives
>> http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-146-outcomes-intellectual-pro
>> perty-rights-and-the-freedom-to-share
>>
>> A background brief on libraries and public access was produced by all
>> the library groups present, and ISOC, and can be found here:
>> http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/WSIS/libraries_public_access.pdf
>>
>> Our first Dynamic Coalition workshop also went well, so there will be
>> outcomes from that to share soon enough. For those of you interested in
>> issues relating to public access to the Internet please consider joining
>> the DC's mailing list: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/pal-dc
>>
>> In general, I felt that that the sessions I got the most out of were
>> those on intellectual property - there seemed to be more input from
>> rightsholders this year (RIAA, Disney) and this made the discussions
>> more interesting for me. It was good to get some input from the side of
>> the media corps/reps as I feel previous IGF workshops on this topic have
>> had quite a lot of groups from civil society in general agreement. Made
>> for a better discussion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
>> Sent: 13 November 2012 11:18
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops
>>
>> A lot of people I spoke to in Baku last week were very positive about
>> the workshops, pretty common message was that the content the best of
>> any IGF. Not the main sessions, the workshops. I was working for the
>> secretariat (contract ended with the conference), I didn't make it to
>> any workshop, and not much outside the main hall.
>>
>> I'd love to hear of workshops and other meetings people found valuable.
>> Is there something to build on for next year? Taking stock for the
>> first consultation of next year will start soon (or soon'ish).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>

-------------- 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