[governance] A workshop on Nnenna's questions? (was Re: Blogpost:...)
Anja Kovacs
anja at internetdemocracy.in
Fri Mar 22 14:39:16 EDT 2013
Dear all,
I agree with Avri that we should let many flowers bloom. However, at the
same time I am not convinced that having a workshop on this topic at the
IGF is the best way forward. For one thing, even if the MAG might be
willing to let go of the requirement that each workshop has at least three
stakeholder groups, I think we should be careful not to slowly do away with
what is perhaps the most valuable characteristic of the IGF, the dialogue
across stakeholder groups, by focusing our efforts at the IGF on having
discussions that are really internal to civil society.
I am also not sure that we can actually afford to wait until October to
have this conversation among ourselves. Questions around legitimacy,
representation, accountability, transparency crop up again and again, not
only at the global level but at national levels as well, and have done so
for years. Why don't we start trying to tackle these questions in a more
systematic manner now?
So here is what I would like to suggest. In an attempt to start moving
forward on these issues, why don't we start discussing one question a week
on a separate email thread, say from early April onwards? The conversation
could then be summarised by one person in the following week, highlighting
points of agreement, but also of convergence. If people find this useful,
the document in question could each time be put to a consensus call, to
make sure that all those involved do indeed feel it is representative of
the discussion.
When all questions have been covered, the summaries could all be put
together into one outcome document, that can highlight recommendations and
principles wherever agreement has been reached. As people's opinions might
change, or crystalise, as the discussions evolve, the document as a whole
probably should also be put up for discussion for a week, and be amended
according to the outcome of that conversation.
At the IGF itself, we could then have a half day IGF pre-event, where we
discuss the document and its implications with civil society beyond the
IGC, as well as think through how and where our conversations on this topic
can usefully feed into the many workshops on multistakeholderism that will
undoubtedly take place at the IGF this year.
The questions we would address is first of all the set already shared by
Nnenna, but also the questions that Michael posed in an earlier email - as
the latter were buried somewhere in a long thread, I have pasted them again
below this message. We made want to add additional questions as well.
I would be very interested in hearing what you think of this proposal. If
people think this is a good idea, I would be happy to put in the work to
put this on the rails. If enough people are interested, perhaps we could
even put into place a small group to take charge of this mini-project.
Best regards,
Anja
*Michael's questions:*
1. what is the definition of a "stakeholder" (stakeholder group?--is
there a difference?)
2. who gets to define/ratify the
definitions/inclusionary/exclusionary covenants for individual
stakeholders/SG's
3. is there an appeal/review process re: these covenants
4. what is the process of evolution/change of these stakeholder
covenants and how is the process governed/managed and by whom
5. how are internal governance process within stakeholder groups
determined/ratified and how is this process itself governed and by whom
6. what is the relationship between individual stakeholder groups
and associated organizational (focal) structures--is this a necessary or
contingent relationship and if contingent what are the factors governing
such contingencies
7. what is the relationship between SG's, Focal organizations and
non-Focal SG members--and how is this governed and by whom
8. how is the significant disparity in available resources for
internal operations/management and external participation/representation
handled so as to ensure some degree of equitable opportunity for the various
stakeholders
9. other...
Mike
On 22 March 2013 21:58, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> On 22 Mar 2013, at 11:43, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
>
> In any case, if the idea is to go forward, in whatever way, it will
>
> need a volunteer to move it forward.
>
>
> BTW "there should be fewer workshops" has *not* been adopted as an
>
> IGC consensus position. The thought was included in the recent IGC
>
> statement, but only with a "Some of us suggest:" qualifier, because
>
> it did not get consensus otherwise.
>
>
>
>
> OK, could you check. I don't remember anyone saying more workshops
> better, perhaps one saying it wasn't an issue, and quite a number
> saying less would be good (one way or another saying a drop in numbers
> would be good).
>
>
> I do. I like there being a lot of diversity in the workshop offerings. I
> think a better job should be done of threading them so that like does not
> compete with like in the same time slot.
>
> But I do beleive that in any of the themes one should be able to attend
> something in that theme in most every time slot if that is ones pleasure or
> need.
>
> I also have no problem with workshops that have too few attendees. Both
> on the IGF were I participated in a workshop with fewer than 10 people
> came, and at recent ILGA world conference where only 3 people came to a
> session i was giving, we had a great session. And since the IGF allows us
> to capture the sound and transcript of every workshop no matter how
> sparsely attended, they are all available to all of us and to all
> stakeholders, no matter how few people attend initially.
>
> I think that we only bring this group together once a year on a global
> level and we should allow for all the conversations possible, even if it is
> only among a handful of people who would not share otherwise on this topic.
>
>
>
> it does matter. Seems one of the reasons for this preliminary
> proposal process is to try and reduce the number of workshops, to
> reduce duplicates on the same topic, and to make the barrier a bit
> higher for frequent contributors. If there really isn't consensus
> that the number of workshops should be reduced this year (there were
> 11 parallel tracks in Baku) then CS MAG members might like to know
> that's the prevailing view.
>
>
> As I said I have a dissenting view. I think the more MAG pares things
> down, the more they reduce the information that will be shared and the more
> they curtail the opportunities for capacity building. I also think it is a
> waste of their time, they have more important issues to work on that the
> endless haggle over workshops.
>
> I do agree with those who say we should have more free time, although I
> think free time is largely found by skipping sessions for other activities
> from time to time. I also think that there should be decent free time
> intervals between sessions to allow chat time at the end of a workshop.
> Unless food is being offered by the host, I would prefer a schedule that
> ran through the day of (90 minute sessions followed by 30 minute breaks
> from 8am tile 8pm with not specific feeding time. We travel far for the
> opportunity to meet, so lets meet as much as possible while at the meeting.
> People don't need to go to all meetings, but all meetings need to be held.
> Sell sandwiches the hungry can bring to the sessions or sit in a nice
> environment and char over. Wasting a workshop time slot with lunch makes
> no sense to me - unless of course it is a cultural affair where the hosts
> treats the assembled.
>
> avri
>
> ILGA <http://ilga.org/> - International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and
> Intersex Association: a worldwide federation campaigning for lesbian, gay,
> bisexual, trans and intersex rights, since 1978.
> MAG <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout> - Multistakeholder Advisory
> Group
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130323/c1cc2821/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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