[governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go

[Norbert Bollow]

Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Oh one additional thing.. we should formulate a policy question which
> the workshop addresses. Or rephrase the title as a question.

Actually we have only up to 60 characters for the title.

"Strengthening accountability and transparency in MS processes" is
slightly too long, but "MS processes: Strengthening accountability and
transparency" would fit.

We also need some wordsmithing on the following points:

2.	Concise description of broader thematic area of interest (max
500 characters)

3.	Concise description of specific issues or policy questions to
be addressed (max 500 characters)

4. Indication of workshop format:
a.	Panel*
b.	Roundtable
c.	Free discussion (with one or two moderators)
d.	Other (please describe)

Greetings,
Norbert


> > Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included
> >> and built on Nnenna's suggestions.
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >> Proposed title:
> >>
> >> "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability
> >> and transparency in MS processes"
> >>
> >> Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three
> >> non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share
> >> experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice
> >> approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these
> >> constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of
> >> the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from
> >> having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists
> >> and analysts.
> >>
> >> The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to
> >> the CSTD WG on EC.
> >>
> >> The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows
> >> (building on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list):
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in
> >> multi-stakeholder processes
> >>
> >> 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how
> >> stakeholder groups are defined and represented
> >>
> >> 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient
> >> transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss
> >> possible principles to work from
> >>
> >> 4. Propose working methods for going forward
> >>
> >> 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a
> >> working document to the CSTD WG on EC.
> >>
> >>
> >> Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the
> >> build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to
> >> initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the
> >> next IGF open consultation to have a face to face discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 


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