AW: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Adam Peake]

How do you feel about devoting a day to a single subject and using
mixed formats?

For example:

Morning: 2 hours of panel or round table ("experts" + a listening audience)
Mid-day: Morning session closes with set of questions, challenges.
Audience encouraged (as they wish) to join in small groups
(self-organize) to discuss any/all issues raised.  Use social media to
say where a group is, topics selected, language used, provide updates,
etc etc.  4 hours including lunch.
Afternoon: 2 hour plenary.  Groups come back to main hall and
share/discuss (moderator act as facilitators,)

Rapporteurs might attempt to identify outcomes, report in to a session
on the last afternoon. Rapporteurs might be a small multi-stakeholder
team, or an individual.

Not wedded to any of above, but I think enhanced cooperation and
Internet principles both merit much more time than a single typical
format session can offer.

Adam



On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 28/01/13 03:04, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> One key issue should be "principles". There was a proposal in Baku to
> summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) "IG Declarations on Principles"
> (25+) of the last three years and to produce a "compendium" as a first step
> towards somethink like a multistakeholder framework of commitments on
> Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the next step and the MAG
> should pave the way for a more comprehensive and analytical approach.
>
>
> +1
>
> Also I would like to see one main session with a completely different
> outcome-oriented format that is more actively facilitated.  In the past the
> MAG discussed proposals for a more deliberative format, such as speed
> dialogues (Rio), moderated debates (Hyderabad) and round tables (Sharm).
> Since all of these were shot down, we seem to have given up trying.
>
> Amongst the most important foundations for this sort of format is that the
> participants need to be empowered (ie. they will produce something at the
> end), and that the power imbalances between them are eliminated for the
> duration of the exercise (through the way in which the process is
> facilitated).
>
> So this means the session should be oriented towards producing a specific
> outcome that addresses a specific problem, through a process of informed
> deliberation.  The speed dialogue idea embodied this very well, and the
> successive proposals went downhill from there.
>
> The point is, that if we do not *try* something innovative like this, then
> we are accepting the line that the IGF could never possibly come up with any
> form of recommendations on policy issues, because to do so would inevitably
> result in ITU-style intergovernmental decision-making gridlock.  This is,
> excuse my French, bullshit.
>
> It would in fact be *trivially simple* for us to adopt any number of
> processes that would result in tangible messages from the IGF.  Just to give
> one easy example, a session, with background materials very quickly
> summarised up front, could lead into brainstorming "What are the two most
> important questions to be answered about XYZ issue", then "What are a range
> of possible answers to those two questions".
>
> This may result in, say, six propositions.  Then we could have six
> facilitators who could break the room into small groups to compare and
> contrast the alternatives, and the groups would report back to the plenary
> session, ending up with a straw poll.  Alternatively, you can just pin up
> paper charts with each question, for people to record their agreement: see
> http://www.dotmocracy.org/.
>
> This could be a trial run for the use of a similar process, ultimately, to
> narrow down the areas of consensus and disagreement around the compendium of
> Internet principles that Wolfgang refers to.
>
> I have posted more comments, on the other issues, at
> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79.
>
> --
>
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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