[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Adam Peake]

Parminder, could you send a link to IGF Improvements working group's report(s).

Has there been a discussion on the list about the WG's recommendations?

Thanks,

Adam




>Apologies for being late into this important discussion.
>
>I will comment separately on the discussions 
>that have taken place upto now and the evolving 
>text. However, I think we should first of all 
>seek that MAG implements the recommendations of 
>the WG on IGF Improvements, especially on the 
>following counts
>  (below are all quotes from the WG's report)
>
>"To focus discussions, the preparation process 
>of each IGF should formulate a set of policy 
>questions to be considered at the IGF, as part 
>of the overall discussion. The results of the 
>debates of these questions, with special focus 
>on public policy perspectives and aimed at 
>capacity building, should be stated in the 
>outcome documentation."
>
>"The outcome documentation should include 
>messages that map out converging and diverging 
>opinions on given questions."
>
>
>
>"Š...identifying pertinent key policy questions 
>around which main sessions for the IGF will be 
>structured. In order to enhance the bottom-up 
>process and to facilitate the identification of 
>key policy questions, the Secretariat could also 
>issue the call for workshop proposals before the 
>first Open Consultation."
>
>
>
>(quotes end)
>
>There has been a sense of impatience and great 
>urgency vis  a vis the fact that IGF has really 
>not addressed key global public policy questions 
>that it was created to contribute towards 
>resolution of. For tooo long it has remained 
>caught in matters of process and form. It is 
>time to do what it really needed to do.
>
>parminder
>
>
>
>On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>>Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert 
>>>Bollow <mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><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>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
>>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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


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