[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sun Jan 27 06:59:00 EST 2013 

I don't agree with Internet principles as the overall theme, but do
agree it's a topic that needs significant focus.  I think it's clear
after 7 IGFs that a session of 2 or 3 hours and a few scattered
workshops doesn't begin to scratch the surface of an issue.  So how
could we use a day?  Would more depth of discussion be more likely to
lead to some form of outcome?

Just a thought:
Structured discussion on the morning (might be a panel or a round
table in a plenary setting).
Free, small group discussion middle of the day (working in small
ad-hoc groups to address issues and or questions identified during the
morning)
Back to "plenary" for shared discussion?  (use moderators to manage
the flow:  some are getting very good at this role. For example, I
think Bill Drake and Jeanette Hofmann have been excellent. Better than
the "professionals".)

But just a thought, how else might a full day be used to develop a
useful dialogue about one topic?

Schedule might look like:

Day 1.  AM: Opening ceremony.
Day 1.  PM: Critical Internet Resources (3 hours)
Day 2.  Enhanced Cooperation (2 hours sessions, work over "lunch")
Day 3.  Internet Principles (2 hours sessions, work over "lunch")
Day 4.  AM: Taking Stock and Emerging Issues (3 hours)
Day 4.  PM:  Outcomes (1 hour).  Closing Ceremony

My opinion, 3 hours is a long time and takes a good subject or it
drags.  Only CIR from Baku worked the 3 hours well.  (IMHO etc etc)

Adam



On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:31 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> I may also remind that I had proposed that IGC supports the Internet Rights
> and Principles (IRP) Group which is likely to propose that
>
> (1) Internet principles in some form be the overall theme of the next IGF -
> Maybe something more descriptive as - 'public interest principles for the
> Internet' or 'Shaping global principles for the Internet'
>
> (2) A round table on Internet Principles be held at the next IGF.
>
> I am developing a first draft for the IRP Group, if IGC so wants I can share
> it with IGC as well.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Sunday 27 January 2013 04:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> Hi Norbert,
>
> No, sorry, no time to work on a draft.  But look forward to discussion
> and hopefully some consensus.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> Resending email sent to the list on Jan 10.  Deadline for
> contributions is Feb 14.
>
> Just over two weeks to agree any contribution.
>
> Thanks for reminding us! This is urgent and imporant.
>
> Adam, are you willing and able to take the time to quickly produce a
> first draft?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> A few comments for the February/March consultation.
>
> Public archive of MAG mailing list needed, not been updated for a
> year.
>
> Workshops:  too many.  Cut to between 80 and 100.  Make this target
> number known when the call for applications is published, might be the
> first time quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might think
> about implications of this for the IGF), people should expect to be
> disappointed.
>
> Minimum of 50% of MAG members must complete assessment of all
> workshops.
>
> Clarify rules for other sessions (open forums, dynamic coalition,
> etc.)
>
> No reason an initial call to prepare proposals can't be made before
> the Feb meeting (more time better and the meetings a little later than
> usual).  A reminder to MAG members to ready their stakeholders.
>
> For workshops, keep the current themes (access, SOP
> [security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance for
> development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging issues).
> Have the MAG better define Internet Governance, how it must be
> considered in workshop proposals (there are other spaces in WSIS
> follow-up for non-IG issues).  Use an evaluation form for workshops
> (at the moment don't even know if a room was empty or overflowing,
> simple count a good idea.)  However, indications are that while there
> were too many workshops in Baku many were strong in content, well
> received.  MAG should not cut what looks like a success to favor the
> floundering main sessions.
>
> Merging not the always the solution, it's too easy an answer for MAG
> in their evaluation to say merge simply because proposals have similar
> words in the title.  If merging proposed then the new workshop needs
> support or tendency to end up with 2 workshops in the same space
> (merge in name only).
>
> Overall theme for 2013: "enhanced cooperation -- meaningful
> participation of developing countries in Internet governance".
>
> Main sessions. Mix up the formats, 3 hours generally too long, some
> poorly attended in Baku and many grumbled complaints about poor
> content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous years, etc.
> Some main sessions need better preparation (and some were good -
> transcripts illustrate the differences, MAG needs to be aware they
> have a role to complete, not last minute for a meeting of the IGF's
> importance.)  Invite speakers early.  Use (look for) funds to support
> speakers.
>
> Taking stock and emerging issues:  mix the two sessions, then
> justifies 3 hours.  Probably best held on the final morning (i.e.
> emerging issues become issues the IGF thinks emerging as important for
> the coming year(s)).
>
> Final afternoon:  session on outcomes (1 hour), followed by closing.
>
> Critical Internet Resources (strong session in Baku, justifies 3
> hours).  Keep as before.
>
> New theme: Enhanced Cooperation. Sessions in mixed formats over 1 day,
> e.g. Morning expert panel session 2 hours. Follow by a long break
> where people encouraged to join self-organizing small groups to
> discuss a few set questions and ideas from the morning panel.
> Afternoon, 2 hour moderated session with audience only, no
> panel/experts etc.  Bring back comments from the small groups.
>
> New theme: Internet principles.  One day, perhaps same format as
> suggested for enhanced cooperation.  Try something different.
>
> Development aspect of IG always overlooked and too often "governance"
> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific
> public comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May
> meeting to decide on topics and format.
>
> Time to drop access and SOP as main sessions, but keep as workshops
> and perhaps round-tables.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Governance mailing list