[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Adam Peake]

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
>>
>

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