[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Norbert Bollow]

Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> >
> > > re Main sessions.
> > > *Only two *90min main sessions.
> > > One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
> > > Interpretation only in english.
> > > Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
> >
> > Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
> > like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
> > session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
> > [1] http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
> >
> > If so, why?
>
> Yes Norbert.
> 
> Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
> celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
> truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
> because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
> that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
> 
> One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
> means. Result will tell.
> 
> Workshops are more effective because:
> - there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
> one,
> - speakers use spontaneous language,
> - there are more interactions with the attendees,
> - specific topics fit better with a small room,
> - it's easier to identify who is there.
> 
> On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
> english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
> could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
> various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
> (Chicagoan).

Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
that is truly taken seriously.

So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
of them.

So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
request.

What do the others think?

Greetings,
Norbert

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